4th-36th Vol. 51A-Committee of Supply-Justice

Madam Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable government House leader for Orders of the Day, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us this morning 27 visitors from Elmwood High School Adult ESL Program under the direction of Mrs. June Fahymko. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer).

Additionally, we have nine Canadian History Studies students from the University of Manitoba under the direction of Dr. Kathryn Young. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this morning.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

* (1010)

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This morning, this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Justice. When the committee last sat, the honourable member for Pembina had six minutes remaining in speaking to the main motion.

Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. Chairman, certainly I am pleased that I can add a few more comments and put them on the record this morning. I thought at the end of my discussion the day before yesterday that I felt I was very close to persuading the members opposite to withdraw the resolution. However, this morning in my discussion it appears that we still need to do a little bit of convincing, so I intend to use the remainder of the time that I have here to try and support that. Certainly from all the information that I have heard, that I have read of on Hansard that the opposition members have put forward, I submit to you that I see absolutely no reason why our minister should resign. I believe that the members opposite are on a wild goose chase and are needing something to try and put on record which they feel could be helpful to them in a political sense but really I feel does not add towards the discussion at all.

Further to that, I guess what disturbs me here is simply the fact that the members opposite are wanting our minister to resign and if I could use the analogy of, you know, trying to pick on one person and trying to find fault. I find that distasteful, and that is what I have sensed here for the last number of days is taking place. It is sort of when one part of the body aches, the balance is aching as well. So certainly this morning, I feel that members opposite are looking for things to attack our minister and certainly have not found the evidence that they are looking for. It certainly is not out there. So I certainly, certainly could not support the resolution that they have put in place. Again, I would ask them to withdraw their motion, simply for once and all, admit that there is nothing here. Put it aside and let us move on. I know one of the members, I think it was the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), said at the outset here, he used the word "never," so I guess they are fairly intent on pursuing this direction.

An Honourable Member: "Intransigent" is the operative word.

Mr. Dyck: "'Intransigent' is the operative word" is what I have been told here, so I guess, again as I read, as I listen to what the members opposite are saying, I certainly cannot find evidence here which would support the allegations that they are making and consequently I cannot support this resolution. Again, I would encourage them to withdraw. So with those few words on the record this morning, I will conclude, and again, I would encourage them to remove the resolution that they have put on the books. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Chair, I would like to put a few comments on the record as well at this point in time, hotly in opposition to the honourable colleague's motion from across the table.

An Honourable Member: Partly in support.

Mr. Radcliffe: Oh, well, I would not even go so far as to say that because I think what one must do is look at the entire record of the current incumbent Minister of Justice as an individual for whom I have the highest regard. [interjection] The member for Crescentwood is being somewhat facetious today in introducing some irrelevancies into the discussion, which is their wont, because although they may be very well-meaning individuals, they do tend to display a somewhat lack of research and scholarly academic approach to the issues which, I think, all these issues deserve--[interjection] I think that when you consider some of the major issues that our Attorney General and the Minister of Justice has done to represent our province--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I have recognized the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I am hearing other comments over and above his remarks. I would ask the committee's co-operation. The honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has the floor. Continue.

Mr. Radcliffe: I noted some maunderings and mutterings from across the table, but I was doing my best to ignore them as just sort of emanations coming from those lowly things that carry the waste away from our streets and cities and looked upon those comments as such, just as the effluvia that sort of floats up.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Chairperson, you have been very good. In fact, on Tuesday, twice you ruled that there was a point of order because members on the government side are not being relevant to the motion at hand. I would ask you to call the member for River Heights to order and to be relevant to the motion which asks the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) to resign.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Burrows does not have a point of order, but again I would remind all honourable members--[interjection] Order, please. I would remind all honourable members that there is a motion before us in committee--

An Honourable Member: And a serious one.

Mr. Chairperson: --and a very serious motion, and I would ask all honourable members' co-operation to remain relevant.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to continue.

Mr. Radcliffe: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that when one does review such a motion as has been placed before us, one has to look at the totality of the picture of service that touches upon the individual involved. I can say that when one looks at the record of our current incumbent on such issues as gun registration, for example, and how our minister has represented our province to the federal authorities, who have been unreasonably trying to impress this doctrinaire of mentality on a reality in western Canada that is wholly inappropriate, one can do nothing but glow with pride with the efforts of our current Minister of Justice.

When one looks at the advocacy level, which our Minister of Justice brings to Treasury Board for support of justice issues, I can assure members opposite that they have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of on account of our government. In fact, they would be very proud if they knew of all the efforts to which this current minister goes, and not to derogate, of course, from any of his predecessors, but the current incumbent is the individual who is under discussion at the present time.

An Honourable Member: No, the motion is under discussion.

Mr. Radcliffe: That is right, but I think that--

An Honourable Member: Deal with the issue.

Mr. Radcliffe: Well, the issue deals specifically, of course, with the--

An Honourable Member: Tell us what you think the issue is in the appointment of judges?

Mr. Radcliffe: Well, that is true, and members opposite are trying to confine me to the specific issue and the incidents arising around them as understanding of the joint statement and the facts that gave rise to the joint statement by the Chief Judge the Honourable Judith Webster and our honourable Minister of Justice in the Chamber of recent date.

I would suggest, with the greatest of respect again to members opposite, Mr. Chair, that while they may have been knee jerking or reacting to statements by other officials who were on the judicial selection committee, what they are doing is relying on innuendo. They are relying on hearsay, and I am not sure, I know that the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) is very familiar with the rules of hearsay, although perhaps he has never had to practise them or apply them in the court on a working setting. I know from his academic background that he would have been well instructed on what the rules of hearsay are and how the courts do have a prohibition against relying on rules on hearsay evidence.

An Honourable Member: Hearsay for the goose--remember that one?

Mr. Radcliffe: Indeed, indeed. Yes, the member for St. Johns is alluding to hearsay for the goose. The fact the rules for hearsay in our court system and our discernment of what is actually real and factual and truthful are that one cannot rely upon evidence that one has been informed by a third party. One can only speak to what one saw themselves, one heard themselves or what the state of one's understanding is. To relay what somebody else tells you that they heard is wholly inappropriate, and honourable colleagues opposite are trying to reconstruct and I would suggest perhaps in good faith but on very ill advice.

An Honourable Member: They are not our allegations.

* (1020)

Mr. Radcliffe: No, but one must discern the quality of information upon which one judges one's actions and performs, and they are looking to exclamations or declarations from individuals who were not present at the encounter between the Chief Judge and our Minister of Justice. I think that is the discerning incident that one must look to if one is going to make any meaningful conclusions on this whole imbroglio between the Minister of Justice and the Chief Judge and the judicial selection committee. In fact, what we have is a joint statement, cleared through deputies who were chosen objectively, who performed an arm's-length function, who performed it with dignity and respect to both offices, and that the Chief Judge of our province is a person who has respected tradition and remained silent because, in fact, judges in our province--the tradition longly held and strongly held was that judges speak forth on public issues from the bench, and, short of that, the custom in Manitoba has been that they shall refrain from any further comment into the public milieu.

I know the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) feels that they have the liberty to comment on administrative matters, and these are things that should be carefully scrutinized so that our judiciary do not descend into the common marketplace or the political maelstrom and the winds and tides of fortune on the issues of the current day. The judiciary must make every strong effort to try and remain objective and removed from the common fray, and to politicize the judiciary, I think, although members opposite may advocate that situation, would be a real derogation of some of the major institutions, major bulwarks of our judicial institution.

So, first of all, I think in considering this issue, we must look at our honourable Minister of Justice's total record. Has this person been somebody who has been worthy and honourable and skilled to fill the chair that he sits in today? I would say without a doubt this individual performs those functions with distinction, with honour, with learning, with skill. To point to this one issue of what was, in fact, a misunderstanding I think is very shortsighted, and I think that the process which was invoked mutually by the Chief Judge and the Minister of Justice to have agents to negotiate and to come to a conclusion of what was in the best interests and the recollection and the analysis of the incident in question has been very appropriate. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this is, in fact, the ultimate word and conclusion that should be drawn from that incident.

Mr. David Faurschou, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair

The Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) stood up in our Assembly and gave a full and complete disclosure. So, therefore, to try and make political mileage today on that issue when it has been completely, authoritatively and finally completed is, I think, terribly shortsighted. I would suggest that the only basis upon which honourable members opposite could form any opinion other than their own maundering and imagination would be to react to the opinions of the head of the Manitoba Bar and the Manitoba Law Society, but, in fact, those individuals were only speculating, were only reacting perhaps to secondary--not to the judge's statement that was presented to the Assembly, not to the judge's statement that was made public.

So to rely upon the comments of a third person--[interjection] I believe the honourable member for Crescentwood, Mr. Acting Chair, has a point of order which he wishes to make on this issue.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Chairperson, I appreciate the fact that the member for River Heights is at least attempting to be relevant to the motion in a slim way, and that is a change.

However, he has now put false information on the record. The statement in the House was not a statement of the judge. It was not signed by the judge and we have no indication, other than hearsay, that, in fact, the judge supports the statement, so he ought not to put incorrect information on the record, particularly as a minister of the Crown. It is very inappropriate for him to do so. The statement was a statement by the minister, and the minister claimed without any corroboration whatsoever that it was also the judge's statement. We have been waiting to hear the judge's actual written statement that she put to file some days before the minister made his damage control announcement in the House.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): The honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, on the same point of order.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chair, with respect to my honourable colleague opposite's vain attempt to introduce a point of order, I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, that what he is doing is trying to introduce and to use my time for speaking as an opportunity to introduce his factual misinterpretation of the facts. In fact, what he was referencing was a dispute over the facts. It was not an indication as to process. It was not a comment on anything due to the order of the regulation of this committee or of the speech that I was making.

So I would urge the Chair to dismiss this silly comment out of hand, because with the greatest of respect to the individual involved who presents it, I would suggest that it was ill founded, ill advised and inopportune. [interjection] Oh, not intemperate, no. Not intemperate. I would never accuse the member opposite of being intemperate.

An Honourable Member: But lacking in substance.

Mr. Radcliffe: As my honourable colleague says, lacking in substance.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): Order, please. Have you concluded your remarks on the point of order?

Mr. Radcliffe: On the point of order, yes.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): Thank you. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), it is clearly a dispute over the facts. He does not have a point of order.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is free to continue with his remarks.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chair, I think that if we are going to discern accurately what actually transpired between the two relevant parties, and this is the core and essence of the dispute, we must go to the two virtual parties, the two actual parties who were present at the conversation, at the meeting in the office of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) , and there has been a definitive statement negotiated by agents, discussed by agents, exchanged by agents--[interjection]

An Honourable Member: The truth negotiated in the back rooms.

* (1030)

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): Order, please. The minister is making his remarks. I would expect him to be offered the cordiality of this committee regarding his remarks. Just one point in regard to the time, an allotment is not used during a point of order. The minister still has 17 minutes remaining.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chair, I would urge this committee, and I would urge my colleagues here today to look to the truth, to look at what actually happened, what has been reported to us, not reading, trying to discern their facts from the banner headlines of the local journals or even retail of what individuals may have discussed at subsequent meetings of which we do not know what the parameters of those discussions were. We do not know what happened when the Chief Judge went back to the courthouse. We do not know to whom she spoke in private, in confidence, and there was no transcript of those recordings and so therefore--

An Honourable Member: That is why we need an inquiry.

Mr. Radcliffe: Ah--and we have had the analysis of both individuals who were present at this encounter. Due to the traditions of this province of the silence of the bench, of our custom and tradition of how the bench do speak only from the bench, we can only presume that if the Chief Judge felt that there was a travesty of justice that went to process that, as my honourable colleague for St. Johns has said, there would be a further emanation from the bench, and there has been none.

Therefore, we have the assurance of the Minister of Justice that this was a statement to which both parties had addressed their attention and both parties have asserted that this was an accurate representation of their conversation, and that is the salient point, Mr. Chair, that they are recounting what they were personally involved in and what anybody else may comment on who was absent, who was not present at that meeting, is wholly, totally irrelevant. They may have honestly held opinions, they may have--but, quite honestly, the opinions or the feelings or the recollections of the head of the Manitoba Law Society or the Manitoba Bar as to something that they were not present at is wholly irrelevant to this situation.

Therefore, when one considers the overall administration of this incumbent on such issues as Bill C-58, as youth justice, as staffing for political--[interjection] Bill 68, sorry. My honourable colleague for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan) corrects my nomenclature. But nonetheless, on young offenders, on the whole very sensitive issue of human relations at Headingley, on funding for RCMP and municipal police funding, on sensitivity to aboriginal justice issues, one can only come to the conclusion that this is an individual who is eminently suited, eminently skilled to fill this chair. [interjection] Oh, and the honourable member for St. James is trying to say that the Minister of Justice is responsible for fostering crime in the community, and I would reject that allegation totally out of hand as something that is erroneous, irrelevant and irreverent and--

An Honourable Member: With those few remarks.

Mr. Radcliffe: --and with those few remarks, yes. Thank you very much. I must beg the indulgence of the Chair in this committee and my colleagues that I will now have to excuse myself to withdraw to another duty this morning. But I would urge colleagues opposite to see the error of their ways, amend this motion by withdrawing it out of hand and admit to us all that in fact they may have had a concern for public opinion and justice but that it was erroneously held and without foundation and not a scintilla of fact in this issue. So I would urge all colleagues to reject this issue out of hand.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): The honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has concluded his remarks.

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Chairman, when I found out that this motion had been placed in front of this committee, I felt I had to make a few comments with regard to this motion. It is a serious motion, and one cannot take something like this lightly. I would first like to say that, with regard to our colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), I believe and know with certainty, that the Minister of Justice is very well respected within his own department, has the complete support of all the staff within the Department of Justice. He has brought in, along with his predecessors in Justice, many initiatives in the field of justice that are addressing today's problems of crime on the streets, in our cities and in the rural areas, and I think many of the initiatives that he has brought in and activated are very commendable to our Minister of Justice. So I would like to really begin by saying that he has in fact received my whole support with the initiatives that he has taken on.

Of course, being Minister of Government Services, there are many Justice initiatives within Government Services with regard to the capital spending that we are carrying forward to ensure that crime is being addressed within the province of Manitoba and within our cities and rural areas.

When I look at the motion, Mr. Chairman--and I do not want to spend a whole lot of time on it because I do not have too many points to make about it--the motion is quite simplistic, but I think totally unfounded.

Mr. Chairperson in the Chair

When a motion like that comes forward, you would expect that there would be a sufficient amount of evidence that would be tabled to support making a motion of that type.

However, with this kind of a motion on the table here today, based on the background that was used to bring this motion forward, I find that it is almost totally ludicrous that a motion could be made based on the information that is available today. The motion is basically based on speculation and hearsay. One knows that if you want to start a--a friend of mine who was in municipal politics at Ste. Agathe said that when he was in the armed forces, if there was not a rumour started at ten o'clock in the morning, he would start one. Usually he was quite successful in getting the rumour spread around the entire base.

Basically, I think we are looking at the same thing here with this motion. It is the fact that the basis for it is simply based on speculation and hearsay, in cases second- and third-hand hearsay, that does not really add any credence to the motion whatsoever. I would like to say that, with regard to the selection of judges, there is an act in place that is followed, and I am fully confident and comfortable that the legislation that is there was followed through the process. Everything that has been brought forward from the opposition side has not been able to be substantiated and, in fact, is simply speculation, what they think happened.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to also say that there is probably a prime example of what is happening here that we could display, and there is a game that, when you get a number of people together, you sit them around in a circle in a room and the essence of the game is that the first person whispers a message to the first person sitting next to them and this message in turn is whispered to people around the room as you go around. Then, at the end of the line, the message is shared with the group, and it is compared to the initial message. The surprising thing about this game is that the message gets totally turned around in terms of what the content is by the time it passes through this group of people. So this is what we have happening right here, is the fact that the message goes from one person to another person to another person and then the message comes out and it is misconstrued, it is changed. That is just from the simple fact of having this information passed along, and I think that this game that I am describing is a perfect example of what has happened in this case. One person has told another person who has told a third person, and the message gets changed to the point where there is much speculation, innuendo.

* (1040)

Everybody is standing out there making public statements based on hearsay. None of the people that were involved can support that. In fact, what the ministerial statement that my colleague the Justice minister tabled in the House, which was an agreement between him and the Chief Judge in terms of what the content would be, should be and is the final word in this whole saga that has been perpetrated by members across the way. There is just no point in even pursuing it any further. The message has been tabled; it is there. The facts are clearly laid out. It is agreed to by the two people who had that conversation. Nobody else knows what that conversation was. From that point on, it was strictly based on hearsay as to what was being said.

So, Mr. Chairman, that alone should be substantial evidence to render this motion totally--and should require the withdrawal of this motion, because there is not anybody in society today that basically, if individuals wanted to, they could easily, based on speculation, make some very damaging remarks about individuals that they are doing things that they ought not to do. This could be totally, totally made-up type of information. But once that is said, it is very difficult to try to get that neutralized.

I think that in this particular case with this motion is the fact that the motion is based not on evidence but on hearsay. I do not think it should go any further than to have it withdrawn from this committee.

Another example I would like to share is the fact that why this motion should be withdrawn is that when we deal with groups and they appoint representatives to speak for that group, there are two avenues that one must take in terms of being able to--if you are just meeting with the representative of the group per se, and they say: this is what this group has asked me to convey to you, that in order for a reaction to it and a positive action to what was being said, you need to have some sort of confirmation that there was an agreement amongst the group that this was indeed what that person was supposed to tell you.

So there is usually encapsulated in those comments by that person a written document or at least minutes that would back up what that individual is supposed to convey in terms of the message. So, from that point on, there is confidence that whoever is going to take that message and react to it, there is that supportive documentation there to back up that message. If there is not that kind of confirmation by minutes or by written presentation, then one has to take what that individual said very carefully as to whether indeed one would even repeat the comments that that person had said, because there is no substantiated evidence there to support what that person relayed to you was indeed what that group actually told that person to say.

So you go through this whole process of having this kind of information relayed, and one has to be very careful that it does not get misconstrued. Mr. Chairman, this is what exactly has happened in this case, that it was based on what one person thought another person said. So you get this happening.

Going back on that issue and this motion, I think it is a serious motion, but I think that one has to also realize that you cannot just place a motion like this on the floor based on hearsay. You must have some evidence to back that up, hard evidence. There is none; I contend that there is none. It is strictly hearsay and speculation.

So, therefore--I indicated earlier, I was not going to make too many remarks, my remarks were not going to be too long--I think, based on that alone, this motion should do nothing else but be withdrawn from this committee because it is not worthwhile bringing forward, and in fact it is not even worthwhile documenting it on the books because it is strictly an incredible type of--it is not backed up by any kind of evidence.

So with those few remarks, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Chairman, I just have a few brief remarks this morning in regard to the motion we are currently debating. It is a motion which disturbs me to the most extreme. It is a motion that is based, as has been mentioned in the past, on hearsay and speculation and is completely without substantiation. Therefore, being it is most inappropriate, I would like to state at this time on the record that I encourage members opposite for their reconsideration of this motion, because I would strongly encourage them to withdraw. It is for their own credibility that the withdrawal of this motion would in fact go a long way. However, members opposite, that is certainly to their decision.

I would like at this point in time to bring my perspective of the Justice minister and his abilities in his current role as Attorney General. I have had the opportunity to get to know him extremely well through an election and as a new member of the House. I have no preconceived understandings of the job description nor do I have any prior knowledge of Mr. Toews, the minister's ability, but I have come to respect him to the utmost highest degree. He certainly has the ability, coming from his experience and in his career and the understanding of the job to which he is tasked at the present time. I think of no other person who has that experience and respect that our current minister does exhibit. I would like to look at--

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): A point of order, Mr. Chairperson. I know from time to time we all get caught up in debate back and forth across the table, but I think that the person that is speaking deserves the respect of all committee members. So I would ask that you call those that are having individual conversations to order.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister does not have a point of order, but I would ask the co-operation of all members to give the honourable member for Portage la Prairie, who has the floor, the due consideration for his remarks on the record.

Mr. Faurschou: I will not belabour the debate. It is my own personality that believes that one should be short and to the point in one's remarks. I would just like to ask the members opposite to be cognizant of the initiatives of the current Attorney General (Mr. Toews) and what has been accomplished over his short tenure and his positions in regard to a number of pieces of legislation. I would like perhaps to draw specific note to the initiatives that have taken place in my own constituency, that having the only community crime prevention centre outside the city of Winnipeg in my constituency, and the support that has been provided for it by the current minister in this government.

Mr. Martindale: On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson, my point of order refers to the rule on relevancy in the Manitoba rule book. Earlier in the Justice Estimates you ruled that members talking about policing issues were not being relevant, and I would ask you to ask this member to address the motion on the floor, which calls for the resignation of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews).

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Burrows does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. I would remind all members of the committee that the motion, the way it is worded, allows a broad base in terms of discussion. I am making a serious effort to keep the members relevant on the motion, and I am listening very carefully. I will draw the attention to members when I do believe that there is not relevance to the motion that is before us. But the honourable member for Burrows does not have a point of order, and I would ask the honourable member for Portage to continue.

* (1050)

Mr. Faurschou: It is not insofar a policing issue which I address. It is very relevant to the motion because the motion, as I say, is based on speculation and hearsay and draws into question the credibility of the current Minister of Justice. This particular dialogue to which I engage at the present time is in fact very relevant on that point because it does speak to the credibility of the current minister in his initiatives and overall caring and understanding of community and his portfolio where justice and community are so much intertwined. As well, also I might mention the initiative in regard to the Young Offenders Act and that the minister has in fact attempted to garner the federal government's attention to this particular piece of legislation and how only four provinces, including ourselves, supported it at the outset of that dialogue. But then the Province of Saskatchewan came on board after the terrible incident at North Battleford involving two young persons.

As I said, I will be short and to the point, but I would once again like to encourage the members opposite to reconsider this particular motion and to withdraw it because of its premise of being unsubstantiated and the credibility of not only themselves in this motion but the ongoing workings of this committee which are extremely important, and I would like to reiterate that as the perspective of a new member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairperson: I am going to interrupt these proceedings in the interests of making some progress for five minutes and call a recess for five minutes. So we will resume--the honourable member for St. Johns, on a point of order.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): It is extremely unusual for the Chair to unilaterally call a recess when there is no issue calling for a recess. There is no request, there is no matter that would suggest that a recess is in the interests of anyone, and I ask, Mr. Chair, what the reason would be for a recess at this particular time. There is a motion before the committee. We have called for the question repeatedly, and the government continues to filibuster. Now why is the Chair seeking further delay in this matter?

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for St. Johns does have a point of order.

Mr. Chairperson: I would ask if there is unanimous consent of the committee in the interests of--or what is the will of the committee?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, I just wanted to put on the record that I was in fact the one who suggested a five-minute recess, but I am certainly prepared to continue talking at this time.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a new point of order.

Mr. Mackintosh: Just as the Justice minister has corrupted the Chief Judge of this province--he corrupted her office--he now whispers in the ear of the Chair of this committee, giving instructions to the Chair to recess this committee. Shame, I say.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.

Mr. Mackintosh: Shame. Does he not have any respect for the office of this Assembly?

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The member for St. Johns is out of order.

Mr. Mackintosh: You go to order. Who are you? Who do you take orders from? This committee or him? Shameful.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for St. Johns is out of order.

An Honourable Member: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Family Services, on the same point of order.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson--

Mr. Mackintosh: I appeal the ruling, Mr. Chair.

Mrs. Mitchelson: With all due respect, the member for St. Johns, I think I was recognized on a point of order, and I would like to have the opportunity to speak, maybe in a little calmer manner than he portrays himself from time to time.

Mr. Chairperson, I want to indicate that it is not unusual as a minister that has sat in the chair through the Estimates process, there are occasions when a minister does request a five-minute recess for very valid and legitimate reasons. Usually that is granted. I know that my critic and I do have the opportunity many times, sometimes to set just a short recess aside ahead of time, or there does come a point in time where a minister who has been sitting in the chair for a long period of time has requested a short recess for personal reasons.

So it is not unusual, and I have in the past requested the Chair to ask for that five-minute recess on my behalf. I think it has always been accommodated in a pretty fair and reasonable manner without people losing control and acting in a very inappropriate fashion and taking on the Chair of the committee in the manner that the member for St. Johns has. I think it is very unprofessional. It is very abusive. I would ask that you call him to order and ask him to apologize for the manner--

An Honourable Member: Oh, really.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I am trying very hard to bring some sense of order to this committee and have all honourable members recognize and realize that they should act like honourable members, not like--well, and I will not use any words, but I will indicate not like the kind of--I mean, I would be embarrassed personally and be very embarrassed for my party if I had a member of our caucus acting in the manner the member for St. Johns has. I feel--

Mr. Mackintosh: Oh, is that not something. You should be embarrassed with your minister.

An Honourable Member: Make a ruling.

An Honourable Member: Yes, you are really moving it along, are you not?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I hate to be shouted--

An Honourable Member: The Chair called for order.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Family Services, on the point of order.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I hate to be shouted down by the member for St. Johns in his rude and unruly manner which he often portrays, not only in this committee but in the House. I would ask that you call him to order immediately and try to get him to calm down a little bit and act in a professional manner, which is a manner I think that we were all elected in to represent our constituents. I would be embarrassed to represent my constituents that way.

Mr. Chairperson: On the matter of the point of order, there is--

An Honourable Member: Mr. Chairperson, I believe I had asked to speak to the same point of order, and I believe it is a custom that both sides of the table have an opportunity to do so.

Mr. Chairperson: On the issue of the point of order, there was--I recognized that the honourable member for St. Johns had a point of order, and on a new point of order, there was not--I asked for unanimous consent to consider whether or not a five-minute recess would be in order. I have not received that.

There have been some things that have been put on the record reflecting on this Chair. The honourable minister or nobody has influenced this Chair in this decision and what I asked for, and I want that perfectly clear to the committee. That is a decision that was made by the Chair and, erroneously, I did not ask initially for unanimous consent. I accept all responsibility for that. I ask for the committee's co-operation in bringing this matter to a resolve. We can listen to points of order here all morning.

Now what is the will of the committee? I asked if there was unanimous consent for a five-minute break to bring this matter to a conclusion.

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): I feel the committee is not required for--I do not think they require a five-minute recess at this time, so let us carry on.

Mr. Chairperson: There is not unanimous consent for a five-minute break.

Mr. Toews: Before I make some additional remarks on this motion, I am wondering if the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) has had his say.

* (1100)

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, on the recent point of order which I was not recognized to speak on, although I had asked to do so, we have come to a point in this committee where the Chair unfortunately made a serious procedural error; he has apologized for that, and I accept his apology. My concern here is that there is apparently procedural disagreement which is seriously impeding the work of this committee. It is our understanding that there is an agreement to go to a vote on this motion finally after a great long filibuster, that that is the agreement indicated by the government House leader. We are not prepared to negotiate the question of the minister speaking before a vote.

If the minister wishes to speak and to continue to filibuster and would finally address the actual substance of the motion, that would be fine, but procedurally there was a serious error and I accept the apology of the Chairperson on that, but it is something which we can hardly be expected to not react to, given the unfortunate precedent of the complete abandonment of the rules of this House for the MTS debate. Virtually every time there is an issue of real substance, it seems that the rulings of the Chair do not appear to be consistent with the procedures of the House and, in effect, favour procedures which then go to the favour of the government.

So I appreciate the Chair's apology. I am sorry for the intemperate remarks of the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), who, I think, was reacting completely inappropriately to a very valid concern that any time the rules of a committee are broken by either party to the table or by the Chair, it must be raised very, very strenuously and very quickly because the only thing that protects the right of members to speak, the privileges of members, is the fair application consistently over time of the rules of this House.

So I think the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson), the honourable minister, ought to understand that any time procedural rules are breached, no matter by whom, we will react strenuously and quickly, and we will stop that procedure from happening, indeed, as has happened, and I am a grateful to the Chair to his apology.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Crescentwood, I presume, was speaking on the point of order, and the honourable member for Crescentwood does not have a point of order.

Mr. Toews: Mr. Chair, I do have a few additional comments to make, and I understand that it is the will of the committee that this matter go to vote as quickly as possible. So I will add a few more comments before that proceeds.

I want to respond specifically in respect of the matter raised by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) last date in dealing with the issue of the bilingual judges, and I think, again, illustrates how the member is willing to take certain basic facts and twist them beyond an acceptable proper interpretation. The member indicated that there were, in fact, two bilingual Provincial Court judges in this province, and that is correct, Provincial Court judges. He indicated that one was going on a leave, and that is correct. In fact, that was a concern that was raised with me in my responsibilities of ensuring that the courts have the appropriate resources, a matter that I have discussed on various occasions over the last number of months, not just with members of the court but other individuals as well. The second judge, he indicated, was doing report, but that the report was finished. Therefore, this judge was now free for regular duties. Again, I have no quarrel with that.

Unfortunately, the way the member twisted the facts is that he suggested that the reason I advanced the fact that this judge was doing this report and he was now free would be evidence in fact that we do not require another bilingual judge. In fact, I have been very clear in my statements that it is the results of the report, not the writing of the report, that caused the government anticipation that the implementation of the report, which I have had discussions about, will require additional French language services. So, here, on a very basic factual matter, the member takes the facts, twists them in a totally inappropriate manner to suggest that I have somehow misled the House or misled the committee. Again, another example about how the member really is not interested in the facts at all.

So I would just like to say, and perhaps it is the member who misunderstood, that the government anticipates that the implementation of the report done by that second bilingual judge will require additional French language services. In fact, this was a discussion that I have had with members of the Franco-Manitoban community. So, again, I just wanted to illustrate that this is a member who takes facts, twists them, and then cites that as an example to show that my word is not as good as his.

Well, if we need any indication of this member's word, I need only refer this committee to the editorials written in the Saturday Free Press, May 2, 1998, page A18, as well the Free Press editorial by Brian Cole, dated Saturday, January 17, 1998, at page A12. The Saturday editorial of January 17 is entitled Tim Sale's Creative Counting. It is a wonderful analysis of the thinking of that member, and it certainly does him no service. The second editorial--and I am not going to go through it; committee members can certainly do that on their own--indicated again an example of the weakness of when this MLA, the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), tried to twist facts regarding Manitoba's sunny economic horizon. So I would ask this committee to discount any of the comments made by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale). So if there is unanimous consent at this time, I am prepared to let this matter go to a vote.

Mr. Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question?

Some Honourable Members: Question.

Mr. Chairperson: The question is as follows: The committee recommends that the Justice minister now resign.

Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

* (1110)

Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

An Honourable Member: A count-out, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: A formal vote has been requested by two members. This section of the committee will now proceed to the Chamber for a formal vote. Committee recess for a formal vote in the Chamber.

The committee recessed at 11:10 a.m.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): The committee will come to order. Under Manitoba practice, debate of the Minister's Salary is traditionally the last item considered for the Estimates of a department. Accordingly, we shall defer consideration of this item and now proceed with consideration of the next line. Before we do that, we invite the minister's staff to join us at the table, and we ask that the minister introduce his staff at this point in time. Seeing none, we will now proceed to line one.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, in this area of Estimates, we traditionally have a wide scope for discussion in terms of the overall administration of the department. I am very concerned that the minister appears not only to be at variance with senior members of the bar in their accounts of certain matters that we have discussed at great length in this committee, but indeed at variance with his own words.

Just before we broke to vote on the matter, Mr. Chairperson, the minister spent some time indicating that I had twisted the facts in regard to the need for a bilingual judge, and he indicated that this was somehow inappropriate because he had never suggested that the reason he needed a bilingual judge was that he had a judge going on leave and he had a judge undertaking work on a report.

Mr. Chairperson, I want to put on the record the minister's actual words from Hansard on Thursday, May 7, page 2754, a response of Mr. Toews: "We have in this province two . . . judges who are bilingual French and English. One of those judges is going on a leave of absence. Another . . . of those judges is conducting a review of French language services which we know will impact on our ability to deliver French language services in court. The member would be the first to come to this House if we could not provide the adequate, constitutionally required French language services in a trial, and if that case was dismissed, I would get the blame. Yes, Madam Speaker, I need a French language judge and the people of Manitoba need a French language judge."

Those are the words of the minister. He used the fact that one was going on leave as a justification for a judge being required in French language. He used the justification of a judge undertaking a report as a justification for having another judge appointed. Mr. Chairperson, those are his own words. He is convicted by his own words. Indeed, that was his rationale in the House for saying he needed another judge. Then he has the temerity to speak in this committee as though these words had never been spoken.

Now, there are two alternatives here. Either the minister genuinely forgot that he had said these things in the House, that he had used this justification and now attempted to back away from that because it was embarrassing, or he simply does not have any recall about what is true, and that is even more troubling, Mr. Chairperson, because this minister said, I needed a French judge, and then he gave as a rationale for that need the fact that Judge Chartier was doing a report. Well, he has acknowledged the report is completed. He said Judge Gregoire was going on leave. That is true, perhaps next summer, in July or August of 1999, certainly more than enough time to have more French appointments to the bench if that was required by a regular and due process.

Mr. Chairperson, this minister has difficulty recalling his own words, his own justification for things as important as the appointment of judges. I think it is very clear why we have lost confidence in this minister's ability to administer and to see to the enforcement of justice in this province.

So I wanted to put on the record the fact that the minister's words in this committee this morning are seriously at variance with the minister's words to the House on May 7 on page 2754 of Hansard, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Toews: Mr. Chair, in fact, those exact words indicate my position very, very clearly. The member is suggesting that the issue with respect to the judge submitting the report and doing the report is the only reason why that judge was unavailable for other duties. In fact, what those exact words indicate is that in fact the study of French language services would have an impact on our ability to provide French language services. Again, this is a deliberate way of this member using the words to a very narrow interpretation to his advantage and simply a misrepresentation of the very clear words that are there. Again, it demonstrates this particular member's ability to distort the meaning of statistics, or even words, or to criticize without being constructive.

Now the member seems to enjoy a debate that does not get into the substance of issues, but simply to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. That is what his forte is. I prefer to deal with more substantive things, things that have relevance for the administration of justice in this province, and for this member to make that kind of suggestion, again, demonstrates the style of attack.

I think, as I indicated earlier in my comments, the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) has been noted for that kind of attack. In the May 2 editorial of the Winnipeg Free Press, it is a very clear analysis of how this member takes certain statistics and totally twists them so that they bear no meaning or no relationship to reality and then expects others to agree with his twisted interpretation. In fact, those are exact words of the editorial in saying: "In any case, Mr. Sale"--and I am quoting here--"should be directed to spend more time outlining ways in which the NDP would build on the economic growth that is clearly taking place rather than twisting numbers to the point where they become meaningless." Again, this is exactly the same kind of situation that he is engaging here again.

On the 17th, again the point under the heading May 17--source is the Winnipeg Free Press--editorial entitled Tim Sale's Creative Counting, and again I am quoting that: Tim Sale is a desperate man. As Industry critic for the New York--

An Honourable Member: I think you got the date wrong. It is not May 17.

Mr. Toews: Oh, I am sorry, it is January 17, 1998. As Industry critic for the New Democratic Party, it is Mr. Sale's job to criticize the government for whatever role it may play in helping to create jobs in Manitoba . So what it says: As he comes under greater and greater difficulty to find a problem, he becomes more and more creative.

I think we all know what that is a polite way of saying about the member for Crescentwood. What they say is: Mr. Sale's effort to discredit the Finance minister is a classic case of how to manipulate numbers to produce what you want to show.

Again, in this committee he is taking one sentence attributing a very specific, limited meaning to it and then saying the minister is misleading this committee. In fact, I stand by exactly what I said, and if any further clarification is needed, my comments of this morning indicate exactly what I was stating, and what I was objecting to was the twisted way in which the member for Crescentwood engages in debate.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): The time being 12 noon, I am interrupting proceedings. The Committee of Supply will resume sitting this afternoon following the conclusion of Routine Proceedings.

* (1010)