Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I have a statement for the House.
I have been concerned with what I perceive to be mounting pressures on the Chief Judge to make a public statement despite the long-standing tradition that judges do not speak out on public issues.
I have the utmost respect for the Chief Judge, and accordingly I have been made aware of the recollections of the Chief Judge on the events of the last several weeks relating to the judicial appointment process that has been the subject of questions and answers here. In the result, I have shared with her these comments to ensure that there is no further misunderstanding or disagreement.
I am advised that the Chief Judge has reviewed the transcript of Question Period on May 11, 1998, and shares my recollection of the substance of the matters discussed between us on May 4. However, for her part, I am advised my comments left her uncertain, upon leaving our meeting, as to my intention to proceed with the process of appointing two Provincial Court judges from the list of seven names that had been left with me at the end of the meeting. For my part, I thought I had made it clear in indicating that, if the committee could not or did not wish to submit further names for an additional position, the existing list would be proceeded with.
I regret any misunderstanding that might have been generated by my lack of clarity and take responsibility for any misunderstanding that I may have caused. It has always been and was on May 4 and continues to be my intention to proceed with the process of appointment for two positions from that list, and that process will now continue. Furthermore, I have given my personal assurances to the Chief Judge that I respect the integrity of the process for appointments to the Provincial Court, and I respect the integrity of the judiciary whose members perform difficult work and who are not publicly able to defend their actions.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): "Oh, what a tangled web we weave,/When first we practice to deceive!" Madam Speaker--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): On a point of order, I think everyone would understand that one ought not in this place to do indirectly what one ought not to be doing directly. The honourable Leader of the Opposition knows full well the implication of the words he has just uttered which connotes a deliberate misleading, and that is exactly what those words mean. The honourable member knows that, and one need only check with the authorities to note that that is the appropriate construction of the words just used by the Leader of the Opposition. I would ask that they be withdrawn.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, I notice now that the government House leader seems to be jumping to conclusions about the literary reference that our Leader made. Indeed, I suspect that the real problem here with the government is they know there is indeed a tangled web of stories, of changing stories coming from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews). This is the latest thread in that whole tangle. Far from having the Leader of the Opposition withdraw that statement, I think it is totally appropriate, and we should allow the Leader of the Opposition to put clearly on the record that once again the Minister of Justice has changed his story in this House and should do the right thing, not bring in this kind of statement, but resign.
* (1340)
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I have been advised that this exact phrase, "practice to deceive," was ruled out of order by the former Speaker Rocan. I would therefore ask the honourable Leader of the official opposition to withdraw the phrase.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the quote is directly from Sir Walter Scott. It has been used in the House before, and I suggest very strongly that you do your research and find where that quote has been used before. I would ask you to take it under advisement so you can be thorough and fair in the Chamber.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Based on previous Manitoba precedent, I have made a ruling that the quotation was out of order; therefore, if the honourable Leader of the official opposition wishes to, his only option or recourse is not for direction to the Speaker to review the ruling but to indeed challenge the ruling.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I will temporarily withdraw the statement, because there are bigger issues here today, the honesty of the Minister of Justice. We want to proceed with a more substantive issue here today, so I will withdraw the statement.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable Leader of the official opposition, when a member is asked to withdraw a word, the withdrawal is to be unconditional.
An Honourable Member: I did withdraw it without reservation on my second statement.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I did not hear the second withdrawal, and I am certain that Hansard did not pick it up either, because at that point--[interjection] Order, please. I stand to be corrected. The Clerk has advised that he did hear the honourable Leader withdraw the words unconditionally.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, to continue on with my statement, I regret today that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) did not perform the honourable act in this Legislature and resign. Every sentence in his statement today is worthy of challenge, regrettably, from the beginning of his statement where he says, and I quote: "I have been made aware of the recollections of the Chief Judge."
How has he been made aware of these recollections? What dialogue has he had or his office had with the Chief Judge about her recollections dealing with the integrity and honesty of the Minister of Justice, dealing with the allegations of political interference by the head of the Bar Association and by the allegations of subverting the legal system and law made by the president of the Law Society of Manitoba, Ms. Colleen Suche.
I note that this statement does not include Hansard from May 7, a matter that is before you as a matter of privilege, Madam Speaker, in terms of the recollections, because we would note on May 11 that the Minister of Justice changed his position in this Legislature from what he said in terms of who initiated this discussion between May 7 of what he said in Hansard and May 11, a fact also not addressed by the minister in his statements. If you go through Hansard on May 11, time and time again the Minister of Justice indicates that he did nothing illegal and in fact that the Chief Judge of the Province of Manitoba stated it was legal for him to send her back to the selection committee.
* (1345)
We have not heard yet from the Chief Judge of this province on that matter, the chair of the nominating committee. Madam Speaker, he states time and time again in Hansard: I did nothing improper; I did nothing improper in going back to the committee and asking for more names. I did nothing improper in terms of what is going on. I did not threaten the committee, if they rejected the list, that the process would not be undermined.
On and on and on he goes on the record here, and these answers have not been provided to us in this damage-control statement of a third version of the facts we have had in this House in the last week, regrettably. I also know that two individuals have made serious allegations about the Minister of Justice: one, the president of the Bar Association who has accused him of political interference; secondly, Colleen Suche has accused him of subverting The Provincial Judges Act.
Madam Speaker, we believe that justice must be done in this matter with the Minister of Justice. We gave the Minister of Justice a way of dealing with this matter in honour. Wilson Parasiuk resigned when his name was under attack, and he had an independent retired judge investigate his integrity. Thankfully, he came through the process with honour, with dignity and with his reputation intact. Today, the Minister of Justice's reputation is not intact.
We believe that previous judges have had reports tabled or letters tabled in this House. That is what we want; we want Judge Webster to speak out. It is a practice that has taken place in the past, and this statement today may be damage control by the minister, but it is not acceptable to members of this side. Thank you, Madam Speaker.