Manitoba Hansard — 13 May 1998 (Sitting 47, 36th Legislature, 4th Session)

36-4-47

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session- Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVIII No. 47- 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 13, 1998

Member ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FAURSCHOU, David FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HELWER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATH LIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWAY, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank, Hon. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN. Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary. Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Interlake Brandon East Portage Ia Prairie Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Rossmere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River Charleswood Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C.

P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

2957 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, May 13, 1998 The House met at 1: 30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Winnipeg Hospitals Food Services-Privatization Mr. Doug Martindal e (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of W. Osychenko, P. Jaworski, C. Glisinski and others praying that the Legisla tive Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) to consider immediately cancelling the hospital food proposal and concentrate on delivering quality health care, instead of using health dollars to provide contracts to private firms. Mr.

George Hickes (Point Douglas): Madam Speaker, I would like to present the petition ofR. Cote, M. Wolski, J. Trudel and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health to put an end to the centralization and privatization of Winnipeg hospitals food services. Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of S. Decker, H. Esselm ont, R. Jaram illa and others praying that the Legisla tive Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health to put an end to the centralization and privatization of Winnipeg hospitals food services.

READING AND RECEI VING PETITIONS Winnipeg Hospitals Food Services-Privatization Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense .

THAT the Urban Shared Services Corporation (USSC) has announced plans to privatize laundry, food services and purchasing for the Winnipeg hospitals; and THAT it is estimated that more than 1, 000 health care jobs will be lost over the next year as a result, with many more privatized in the next two or three years: and THAT under the terms of the contract, Ontario businesses will profit at the expense of Manitoba's health care system; and THAT after construction of a food assembly warehouse in Winnipeg, chilled, prepared food will be shipped in from Ontario, then assembled and heated before being shipped to the hospitals; and THAT people who are in the hospital require nutritious and appetizing food; and THAT the announced savings as a result of the contract have been disputed, and one study by Wintemute Randle Kilimnik indicated that, "A considerable number of studies have compared costs of service delivery in health care between self-operation (public sector) and privatization.

Invariably, privatization is more expensive. ": and THAT no one in Manitoba seems to benefit from this contract, especially patients. WHEREFORE YOURPET/TIONERS HUMBLYPRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health to put an end to the centralization and privatization of Winnipeg hospital food services. Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense.

2958 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 1998 Madam Speaker: Dispense.

AT the Urban Shared Services Corporation (USSC) has announced plans to privatize laundry, food services and purchasing for the Winnipeg hospitals; and THAT it is estimated that more than I,OOO health care jobs will be lost over the next year as a result, with many more privatized in the next two or three years; and THAT under the terms of the contract, Ontario businesses will profit at the expense of Manitoba's health care system; and THAT after construction of a food assembly warehouse in Winnipeg, chilled, prepared food will be shipped in from Ontario, then assembled and heated before being shipped to the hospitals; and THAT people who are in the hospital require nutritious and appetizing food; and THAT the announced savings as a result of the contract have been disputed. and one study by Wintemute Randle Kilimnik indicated that, "A considerable number of studies have compared costs of service delivery in health care between self-operation (public sector) and privatization.

Invariably, privatization is more expensive. ", and THAT no one in Manitoba seems to benefit from this contract, especially patients. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the 1\1inister of Health to put an end to the centralization and privatization of Winnipeg hospital food services. Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT the Urban Shared Services Corporation (USSC) has announced plans to privatize laundry, food services and purchasing for the Winnipeg hospitals; and THAT it is estimated that more than I,OOO health care jobs will be lost over the next year as a result, with many more privatized in the next two or three years; and THAT under the terms of the contract, Ontario businesses will profit at the expense of Manitoba's health care system; and THAT after construction of a food assembly warehouse in Winnipeg, chilled, prepared food will be shipped in from Ontario, then assembled and heated before being shipped to the hospitals: and THAT people who are in the hospital require nutritious and appetizing food; and THAT the announced savings as a result of the contract have been disputed, and one study by Wintemute Randle Kilimnik indicated that, "A considerable number of studies have compared costs of service delivery in health care between self-operation (public sector) and privatization.

Invariably, privatization is more expensive."; and THAT no one in Manitoba seems to benefit from this contract, especially patients. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health to put an end to the centralization and privatization of Winnipeg hospital food services. The St. Paul's College Incorporation Act Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Madam Speaker: Dispense.

May 13, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2959 The petition of St. Paul's College praying for the passing of

an act to amend The St. Paul's College Incorporation Act. Winnipeg Hospitals Food Services-Privatization Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT the Urban Shared Services Corporation (USSC) has announced plans to privatize laundry, food services and purchasing for the Winnipeg hospitals; and THAT it is estimated that more than 1,000 health care jobs will be lost over the next year as a result, with many more privatized in the next two or three years; and THAT under the terms of the contract, Ontario businesses will profit at the expense of Manitoba's health care system; and THAT after construction of a food assembly warehouse in Winnipeg, chilled, prepared food will be shipped in from Ontario, then assembled and heated before being shipped to the hospitals; and THAT people who are in the hospital require nutritious and appetizing food; and THAT the announced savings as a result of the contract have been disputed, and one study by Wintemute Randle Kilimnik indicated that, "A considerable number of studies have compared costs of service delivery in health care between self-operation (public sector) and privatization.

Invariably, privatization is more expensive. "; and THAT no one in Manitoba seems to benefit from this contract, especially patients. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health to put an end to the centralization and privatization of Winnipeg hospital food services. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Comm ittee of Supply Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Cha irperson): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Supplementary Information for Legis lative Review for 1998-99 Departmental Expenditure Estimates for the Department of Finance. Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I have a tabling for the House. It relates to The Discriminatory Business Practices Act Annual Report, fiscal year ending March 31, 1998. Hon.

Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I want to table the 1998-99 Supplementary Estimates for the Department of Highways and Transportation. Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to ta ble the Tenth Annual Report of the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation for 1996-97. * (1335 ) MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Chief Judge Statement Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I have a statement for the House.

2960 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May I3 , I9 98 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 rel ating 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 II , I9 98, 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 def end 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. Point of Order 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. * (134 0) 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

May 13, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 296 1 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 Legisla ture 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. Thankf ully, 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,

2962 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 1998 but it is not acceptable to members of this side. Thank you, Madam Speaker. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Judicial Appointment Process Report Release Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, it is indicated today that the Minister of Justice has been made aware of recollections of the Chief Judge. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice: has a report been completed about the allegations of political interference made by the Bar Association and the Law Society to the minister?

Has a report been completed by Judge Webster, the chair of the nominating committee, and why will he not make that report public? Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, that statement, in fact, reflects an agreement between the Chief Judge and myself in which she clearly indicates that she shares my recoilections ofthe events of May 4. Mr. Doer: The minister did not answer the question. Has a report been completed by the Chief Judge? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I have tabled the statement in the House and that is the report. Mr.

Doer: Then I am to assume a report has been completed, and the Minister of Justice is unwilling to make it public. Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I have in fact just tabled my statement. Mr. Doer: With a new question. The former Justice minister tabled the letter from Justice Oliphant in this House which stated, and I quote in the letter: it is not unusual for a judge, a judge particularly with responsibilities for administrative duties in the court, to speak out on issues that affect the courts. That letter was tabled in this Legislature.

Why will the Minister of Justice not table the report from Judge Webster, the chair of the nominating committee? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I have made it very clear, and perhaps the member has misunderstood me in some way. The statement that was made reflects the consensus of the Chief Judge and I in respect of her recollections of the conversation on May 4. * (135 0) Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, is the minister saying there is no report that has been completed by the Chief Judge based on the false statements we believe that he has made in this House on May 11, May 12, May 7, statements he has made to the public?

Can the minister advise us whether there is a report conducted by the Chief Judge, chair of the nominating committee, and why will the minister not release this so that the public will have more to go with than the minister's statement on the basis of consensus rather than the full report prepared by the Chief Judge? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, the member is misleading this House. There is no report, as far as I am aware. Mr. Doer: It is kind of unusual that somebody would accuse one of misleading the House, but he is not aware of whether a report does or does not exist.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice : does he feel, given the reputation of Colleen Suche has been disagreed with in terms of the statements she made by the Minister of Justice two days ago when he said her facts were not correct, the reputation of Mr.

Joubert, who has accused the minister of political interference, does he not feel, in terms of integrity and honesty and in terms of the public view of the justice system and the Minister of Justice himself, that the public should get a full report from the Chief Judge made public to this Legislature and to the people of Manitoba, rather than the statement that allegedly is a statement based on a so-called consensus with the Chief Judge? Should the Chief Judge not speak directly to the people of Manitoba so we will know whether Mr. Joubert is correct and Ms.

Suche is correct in terms of the political interference of this minister in the selection of judges here in Manitoba? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, on May 4, there were two people who had a conversation. One of them was

May 13, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2963 me, and the other person in that conversation was the Chief Judge. Mr. Joubert and Ms. Suche did not take any part of that conversation, nor did they or have they ever come to me to ask me about that particular conversation. Minister of Justice Public Confidence Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): To the Minister of Justice. If there was any perception of rigging by the minister in the system before, it is proven today to an extent never envisioned.

I ask this minister how he thinks he can speak for the Chief Judge of Manitoba and why Manitobans should trust the word of this minister, the three-story minister. How can they trust him when he says what the Chief Judge says? Does the minister not understand how serious it is that he has had negotiations with the Chief Judge since this matter arose? Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I want to very clearly indicate that I have had no direct communications with the Chief Judge, but this is in fact authorized by the Chief Judge. *( 1355) Mr.

Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, what kind of old boys thing is this when he says that he has been made aware of the recollections of the Chief Judge and he has shared with her his comments set out today? What kind of manipulation, what kind of conspiracy is this minister trying to pull off? Point of Order Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Again, Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The words of the honourable member for St. Johns are extremely intemperate and probably very unparliamentary. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on the same point of order. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): A point of order, Madam Speaker. I just respond to that point of order: which words? I checked Beauchesne, and I do not see any words in Beauchesne that the member has used. think they are directly appropriate to finding what really is going on with this statement. I suggest not only we find this point of order not to be in order, but that we ask the Minister of Justice to start answering directly these kinds of questions.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, in doing some very quick research, I cannot find the word "conspiracy" on any of the lists, nor has it in the last few years been a subject of contravention. Therefore, the honourable House leader does not have a point of order. * * * Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I reject the accusations of the member for St. Johns and certainly the derogatory comment about an old-boys' club. The Chief Judge is female; she is a woman. Mr.

Mackintosh: Does the minister not understand how wrong it is in the midst of these ::;;;rio us, serious allegations affecting the highest offices in the justice system for him or his office or his operatives, his agents to in any way make contact with the Chief Judge's office or the Chief Judge and then come in here and purport to speak for her? Does he not understand how that will affect the confidence of Manitobans in the justice system? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, an intermediary on my behalf did not contact the Chief Judge directly. The intermediary on my behalf contacted another individual.

Chief Judge Political Interference Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, I am looking at a statement. There is some fluff in here. There are statements in here that do nothing to exonerate this minister. Someone is not telling the truth. It is either the Chief Judge or it is the minister. This is absolutely untenable and amounts to a crisis of confidence af fecting the highest offices in the system. I have no choice but to ask the minister to tell us: what has he done to muzzle the Chief Judge?

2964 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 1998 Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I have done nothing to muzzle the Chief Judge. Mr. Mackintos h: Will the minister not admit that at the time that he was negotiating the list brought to him by the Chief Judge from the nominating committee, he was holding over her a threat to take her and judge representation off the nominating committees? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, the Chief Judge and I had a conversation over a number of issues; one of those involved legislation. *

(1400) Public Statement Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Well, then, would the minister confirm allegations that have been made that the Chief Judge was prepared to issue a statement which she had put together to be issued to the general public, not to the minister, and I want the minister to tell the House what he did to stop the issuing of that statement from the Chief Judge. Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, Madam Speaker, I have done nothing to stop the Chief Judge from issuing any statement. This is the statement that I have read in the House.

The Chief Judge has indicated her concurrence with the substance ofthe recollections as indicated on May 11, and that is the extent of the matter. Chief Judge Public Statement Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, in going over the ministerial statement I think what is critical here is he quotes, saying, and I quote from the ministerial statement: "I am advised my comments left her uncertain, upon leaving our meeting, as to my intention to proceed with the process of appointing 2 provincial court judges from the list of seven." I think the real question here that needs to be answered is that you have a minister who is saying one thing, and you have some other distinguished individuals saying another thing. What is missing is what the Chief Justice is actually saying.

What the minister is making reference to the Chief Justice is saying does alleviate a lot of the problems that the minister would be having. My question specific to the Minister of Justice is: would he recognize that there is some value to the Chief Justice, as I would recognize, for the Chief Justice to make some sort of a statement, and I trust that the New Democrats would acknowledge that, so that there would be all-party support to see the Chief Justice in fact say- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Hon.

Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I think the statement is clear in respect of her understanding of the meeting, and any further matters are for her to determine and not for me. Mr. Lamoureux: Would it then be appropriate if in fact there was, because we want to recognize the importance of an independent judiciary-that the Chief Justice acknowledge or at least be made aware that there is all-party support to see a statement coming from the Chief Justice? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I will not be a part to ordering her to do anything. Mr.

Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I would ask the minister not to order the Chief Justice to do something of that nature. What I am suggesting is that if the Minister of Justice, as he can I am sure acknowledge that he wiii not feel insulted if she comes out with a statement. The New Democrats will not feel insulted if she comes out with a statement. I do not think there would be any Manitobans feeling insulted, so it is just a suggestion that in fact it would be appropriate to see some sort of a statement, given the seriousness of the issue that is before us today. Mr.

Toews: Madam Speaker, I think my position has been clear on the record. I have made the statement here in the House, and I stand with that statement. Chief Judge Intermedia ry-Minister of Justice Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, the minister has presented the statement to the House,

May 13, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 2965 purporting to speak on behalf of the Chief Judge, which really amounts to an absolute affront and undermining of the independence of her recollection and her value to clearing the air. I ask the minister: since the statement says that the minister has been made aware of recollections of the Chief Judge and he has shared with her comments set out in this release, who was the intermediary between the minister and the Chief Judge? Hon.

Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, there were two intermediaries, one representing myself and one representing the Chief Judge. I did not think it was appropriate to approach the Chief Judge, either through an intermediary without the Chief Judge having an intermediary. Mr. Mackintosh: The minister did not answer my question, I thought an important question. I do not think the minister gets the significance of this. Who was the intermediary between him and the Chief Judge? Mr.

Toews: Madam Speaker, at no time have I had any conversations relative to this issue directly with the Chief Judge. We proceeded through intermediaries with respect to her position to ensure that her independence and her position in this matter was not in any way compromised. Mr. Mackintosh: Since the minister will not answer that question, I ask him this: how long did it take to negotiate with the Chief Judge this mush in this statement today? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, this occurred between May 11 and today's date. Judicial Appointment Process Political Interference Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the disagreement between the Minister of Justice, the members of the comm ittee and the Chief Judge arise around the nominating committee's perception, based on Judge Webster's comments, that the minister told them that they would not proceed with the list prepared by the nominating committee to cabinet unless the nominating committee went back and considered additional names to be added to an additional list.

Madam Speaker, is it the specific view that Judge Webster believed that the minister stated that he would not proceed with the list prepared by the nominating committee unless they went back to prepare other names? Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I never stated that. Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the minister says in his statements that there is a "misunderstanding," is his word, that he takes responsibility for.

The committee was told-and therefore accused the minister of political interference-that if they did not consider more names, if they did not expand the process, the existing list of nominees that they had prepared would not be considered by the minister. Madam Speaker, I would like to know from the Minister of Justice: was it the UI.d.:-rstanding of the conversations with the Justice minister and the Chief Judge that in fact those were the statements made by the Justice minister to the Chief Judge which were relayed to the nominating committee? Mr.

Toews: On the first matter, again the member has misquoted my statement. What my statement says, and I want to quote that carefully here : "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." So, Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the conversation that the Chief Judge had with the comm ittee members, because I never spoke to them about that conversation. Mr.

Doer: Madam Speaker, obviously the minister has come forward with a statement today based on a different set of assumptions that the Chief Judge had about their meeting. I would like to ask the minister if the crux of the issue is: was it the recollection of the Chief Judge, the chair of the nominating committee, that the Minister of

2966 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 1998 Justice stated to her, through to the nominating comm ittee, that he would not proceed to cabinet with the list of seven unless this nominating committee went back and expanded the list? Was that her understanding of the facts versus what the Minister of Justice has maintained in this House previously? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I have made clear what my position was. I understand, for her part, that my comments left her uncertain upon leaving our meeting as to my intention with proceeding. * (1410 ) Mr.

Doer: The nominating committee was told by Judge Webster that the Minister of Justice would not appoint any member from the list unless they went back and expanded the list. Madam Speaker, I would like to know: was it the Chief Judge's recollection- An Honourable Member: nominating comm ittee? Were you at the Mr. Doer: Well, if the Premier (Mr. Filmon) would like to table the statements made by the Chief Judge, if the Premier would like to have a retired judge investigate this independently, we challenge him to do so, Madam Speaker. We are not afraid of an independent review. Some Honou rable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the official opposition, to pose his question. Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the issue here is: did the Chief Judge believe that the Minister of Justice had stated that he would not appoint anybody from the list prepared by the nominating committee unless they went back to expand the list versus the Minister of Justice's changing statements all last week that in fact he had never made that demand, the fact that he had repeated repeatedly in Hansard? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, that is not my understanding. Judicial Appointment Process Independent Investigation Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, how are this Assembly and the people of Manitoba going to obtain the beliefs and statement of facts from the Chief Judge of this committee when that is the issue in di spute, whether the Chief Judge had reported to the committee that the Justice minister had refused to proceed with the names prepared by the nominating committee versus his instructions, and unless other names were prepared and given to him, he would not appoint anybody from the list?

How are we going to know, and I would ask the Premier: will he now have an independent investigation, somebody like a retired judge or somebody else, that can obtain the truth from the Chief Judge, the chair of the nominating committee, so that the names of the members of the Bar Association and the Law Society can be cleared, as opposed to just damage control for a Minister of Justice that has changed the truth three times in this Legisla ture over the last seven days? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, it seems very clear that there is a statement that has been provided to the House that is agreed to by both the Chief Judge and the Minister of Justice. It seems very clear that there is a consensus, a view of what has been said and what has been agreed to that has been said. On the one hand, the Minister of Justice has indicated his position on the issue; on the other hand, the Chief Judge has indicated that she was unclear on a particular point, and that, I think, is exactly where it ought to be. That certainly is not a matter for us to have some sort of grand jury inquiry.

That is an acknowledgment that there was a lack of clarity on one particular point, and that certainly is not an issue that should result in some grand jury investigation. Minister of Justice Resignation Request Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, the minister has made a terrible error, far worse than what was originally done by him when he negotiated and rigged the nominating committee's selection for

May 13 , 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2967 appointment. What is happening today is the Minister of Justice is trying to speak for someone else, someone else whose recollection is critical to the clearing of the air of the highest judicial offices and offices in the justice system in Manitoba. Will the minister resign? Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): In response, I can indicate from the statement-which the Chief Judge is aware of every word of this-indicating that she shares my recollection of the substance of the matters discussed between us on May 4.

Ministerial Statement Chief Judge Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Would the minister, who does not understand that what he is doing here in the world that he came from is like the lawyer speaking for the key witness-! ask the minister: how many meetings did it take to negotiate with the Chief Judge her so-called recollection set out in his document? Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I do not question the good faith or the integrity of the Chief Judge, and I rely on the statements that she has agreed with that I have read today in this House. Mr.

Mackintosh: How do we know she agreed with it? My question to the minister is this- Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for St. Johns that on supplementary questions, the question is to be a specific question. I believe I heard the honourable member for St. Johns ask a very short but specific question. Mr. Mackintosh: I ask the minister: who initiated the negotiations, and who did the negotiations for this political statement? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I again repeat that I have complete faith and trust in the integrity of the Chief Judge.

I am standing up in this House making these public statements. These public statements are written down by Hansard. Minister of Justice Independent Investigation Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, the foundation of a modem democracy is that we have a judicial system that is beyond reproach. Recent allegations of political interference in the selection of judges from the Law Society of Manitoba and from the Bar Assoc iation have raised those fundamental questions of honesty and of respect for the rule oflaw.

I want to ask the minister again, as my colleagues have done many times: will he do what is right for Manitoba, what I believe is right for the office he holds. what is right for the reputations of Ms. Suche and Mr. Joubert? Will he step down? Will he welcome the independent review that will clarify this for all Manitobans? Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the real issue here is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has been embarrassed by relying on hearsay and innuendo.

The person who shared that conversation with me on May 4 has made her position clear in the statement that I read in the House. Now, ifthe member has any other information relating to the direct conversation that I had with the Chief Judge, I would invite him to do that rather than to slander peoples' reputations. *

(1420) Ms. Friesen: I would like to ask the minister to recognize that this sorry parade of allegation, counter allegation and now a private clarification by third and fourth parties anonymous have left Manitoba with a justice system which appears in the eyes of the public to be tainted. Will he step aside, accept the independent review from which he apparently believes he has nothing to fear? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, members of the opposition rely on statements made by people who were not a party to a conversation that I had with the Chief Judge. They are relying on those allegations to mount a campaign.

One of the things that I know is that I did not breach the law, unlike the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) who released names publicly in

2968 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 1998 this House by subverting The Provincial Court Act. He specifically subverted the act. Ministerial Statement Chief Judge Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Justice tell the House which day he was made aware of the recollections of the Chief Justice, and will he tell us whether that view, conveyed to him by anonymous parties, was conveyed in writing? Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the process that occurred, occurred between the two intermediaries.

They came and both of them discussed this issue with me last night. Minister of Justice Resignation Request Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, the web of inconsistencies that this minister has spun continues, and people wonder why we have this problem. It is the same minister who on Thursday said that he did not raise the issue of bilingual candidates, who earlier this week said that he did raise the issue, now puts out a statement that says he has been made aware of the recollections of the Chief Judge and apologizes for some potential misunderstanding that might have taken place.

Why does the minister not admit right now on the public record that the reason there is a misunderstanding here is because right from day one he attempted to rig the selection process? That misunderstanding, most definitely, was not any question. He should resign based on his own statements today. Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): No, Madam Speaker. In fact, as I understand it, is that my comments left her uncertain. Ministerial Statement-Chief Judge Intermedia ry-Minister of Justice Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, this minister, who admits his own difficulty in communicating directly. now expects us to believe this brokered statement. I want to ask the minister, because he never answered this question: who was the person that he appointed to negotiate this statement that is an attempt to control the severe political damage that this minister's cre dibility has taken these last several days? Who negotiated it? Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, if it is relevant, it is not a member out ofmy office or a government employee.

The person who I had acting as an intermediary on my behalf was Mr. Bill Olson of Thompson Dorfman, and the intermediary acting on behalf of the Chief Judge was Eleanor Dawson of Aikins MacAulay. Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson, with a supplementary question. Mr. Ashton: As a further supplementary, now that after close to 40 minutes of questioning we have the names, I want to ask the Minister of Justice if he can indicate what role he had in setting up this brokerage process. Did he contact the lawyer involved?

Did he set this process in place, and does he in fact consider it appropriate, given the sensitivity of this issue, to even start a process which I think on the surface looks very clearly to be inappropriate, having a brokered statement for this minister to come into the House and try and attempt to control the damage done to his political reputation? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I cannot remember the question. Maybe he will repeat the question again. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, to repeat the question. Mr. Ashton: Yes, Madam Speaker.

After 40 minutes I had indicated that the minister finally indicated the names of these people that in his statement were responsible-or him being made aware. I want to ask whether the minister initiated this contact, whether the minister spoke to either one of those lawyers involved,

May 13, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 2969 and also what direction the minister gave to these individuals, certainly his representative in this attempt to broker some sort of attempt to save this minister's political skin. What direction and contact did he have? *

(1430) Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I have ongoing obligations to ensure that the administration of justice is carried out in this province. That requires contact with the Chief Judge of the province, who is the administrator of that court. In the context of her acting as the chair, it was necessary for me to proceed to ensure that that communication continues between us. You know, had I contacted the Chief Judge directly, there would have been, clearly, cries of interference.

Yet, on the other hand, when I prudently cancelled a meeting that I had with her last Thursday morning, I am accused of doing that for political purposes. So when I cancel a meeting, it is for political purposes; when I proceed with a meeting, it is for political purposes. They do not even know what position they are taking. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Price Chopper-Morden Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): What is entrepreneurship and how does it work? Well, it begins with a kernel of an idea. The idea grows into a plan and the plan blossoms into a business.

This morning, I had the distinct pleasure of attending the grand opening of one young couple's idea. This idea is the newest supermarket in Morden, known as Price Chopper. Lee and Cindy Kowalski believed in themselves. They believed that they wanted to take ownership of their future. With the opening of only the second Price Chopper in all of Manitoba, the Kowalskis have proven that they are part of a new breed of rural Manitobans, Manitobans who recognize that with risk comes reward, that within each challenge lies an opportunity, Manitobans who want to remain and invest in their local communities.

Lee began as the meat manager at the former IGA. He soon moved on to becoming a store manager, and Agora Food, the parent company, offered the Kowalskis a franchise opportunity. After extensive renovations, Price Chopper and its approximately 40 employees threw open their doors. On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to extend my congratulations to Lee and Cindy and wish them every success in the years ahead. Thank you. Flin Flon Communi ty Choir Mr.

Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the flowering artistic and cultural spirit in northern Manitoba, and more particularly, the Flin Flon region. The challenging economic times have not dampened the creativity of northerners. My wife and I were privileged indeed to experience one of the three performances presented by the Flin Flon Community Choir entitled Flin Flon Remembers. A packed audience in the R.H. Channing Community Hall was treated to a splendid two-hour extravaganza of music, drama, colour and light.

Some 135 choir members, including the Coppertones, were directly involved, and behind the scenes there were many organizers and support workers. The first half of the performance was called the best of the glee club and featured selections from favourite musicals from the past, including Fiddler on the Roof, Sound of Music, Oklahoma, Brigadoon, My Fair Lady, Guys and Dolls, South Pacific, Music Man, and Annie Get Your Gun. The second half was named Memories, The Psychedelic Sixties, ending with the finale, Hey Jude and Bohemian Rhapsody.

I can only speculate at the endless amount of practice and effort that went into the flawless performances. One could go on and on: inspired directing, professional choreography, dazzling costumes, superb set design, great lighting. The magic worked. The audience was spellbound. [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Jennissen: Yes, the people expect this calibre of entertainment in huge cities, New York-

2970 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 1998 Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing great difficulty hearing the honourable member for Flin Flon. Mr. Jennissen : -Paris, London, Toronto, even Winnipeg, but this was Flin Flon, a very small city in remote northern Manitoba. The performers were volunteers, ordinary people with extraordinary talent. These were our friends and neighbours, and I want to say publicly in this Chamber how very proud I am of those people, how proud I am of northern Manitoba's artistic and cultural community.

A huge thank you to all who made this event the spectacular success it was, and I would like to end by saying, as Ed Sullivan might have said, it was a great show. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Highway Cleanup Camp aign Mr. David Faurschou (Portage Ia Prairie): Madam Speaker, this past weekend I had the opportunity to take

part in the 1998 highway cleanup campaign along with members of the 4-H clubs out of Portage Ia Prairie. I would like to compliment the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) for his continued support of this most worthwhile endeavour. I understand that the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) initiated this program when he was Minister of Highways and Transportation. I would like to compliment him as well. This year, it is anticipated that more than 3,000 volunteers will be working on this program to help keep Manitoba beautiful.

This annual campaign, which began last weekend and concludes the final weekend in May, will raise funds to assist a variety of community projects in rural Manitoba. In fact, last year, 144 of Manitoba's 4-H clubs raised more than $28,000 for their programs in their local community. I would like to encourage all Manitobans during this weekend and the next to be mindful of these young people who are working so hard to keep our highways clean and to avoid the collected litter on the highways until it can be picked up by the Highways and Transportation personnel.

Keeping our province's roadways litter-free and taking pride in our environment is something all of us can and should participate in. Madam Speaker, I would like to say a big thank you to the 4-H clubs of Manitoba for their work in keeping our roadways attractive and litter-free. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Minister of Justice Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, the revelation that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) interfered with the appointment of judges is an extremely serious matter. The Premier (Mr.

Filmon) can continue to defend the minister if he wants to, but he is fooling himself if he expects that anyone believes him or his minister. It is quite clear that the Minister of Justice attempted to force a judicial nominating committee to recommend the appointment of a member of the Conser vative Party, a person who once ran for nomination for political office, Mr. Glen Joyal. This individual may be a competent lawyer but, for whatever reason, was not chosen by the nominating committee to be on the short list.

Only two judicial vacancies existed at the time, but the Minister of Justice is now pretending that there were three. This is despite the fact that the publicly advertised job bulletin did not state a bilingual candidate was required but did state that there were two vacancies to be filled, not three or four as claimed by the Minister of Justice. It should be noted, in 1993, the judicial job bulletin stated a bilingual candidate was preferred.

Today the situation is one where the Attorney General of Manitoba, the chief law enforcement officer for our province, broke the law, their own law which they brought in, I believe, in 1989. The minister politically interfered in the process and is now attempting to cover up what he has done. It is deeply disturbing that this Premier and his government are prepared to accept such behaviour by cabinet ministers. Over the past few years, this Premier has refused to step forward and act when ministers have acted improperly. Whether it was patronage hirings by the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr.

Derkach), the gross incompetence by the member for Fort Garry (Mrs.

May 13, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 297 1 Vodrey), or the dereliction of duty to the conflict of interest by the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson), no minister has ever been removed or asked to step down by this Premier. With such low standards, it is not surprising that the Attorney General feels he can get away with breaking the law. This same minister has a history of breaking the law when, as Minister of La bour, he told a female casino worker that the strike would last an extra day for every day that the people picketed in front of his home.

The minister denies this, but refuses to this day to take a lie detector test. The worker states that she would be willing to if the minister was also tested. If the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General (Mr. Toews) for Manitoba, does not respect the law, how can we expect other Manitobans to respect the law? *

(1440) Health Care System-Brandon Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, we are witnessing the latest

chapter in the decline of the health care system in the city of Brandon under this government. The government has to take responsibility for the current medical crisis in Brandon. It goes beyond the shortage of pediatricians. We have a situation of low morale among doctors-there is a great deal of anger and frustration there-and among medical practitioners. We find that many of them are preparing to leave the city. They are of low morale because of government policies of cuts to the health care system . The Brandon General Hospital has been cut by $6 million in the past few years.

Nurses have been laid off; the hospital is understaffed. The medical equipment is inadequate; it is aging. The hospital building is deteriorating. The fee schedule, as well as those for doctors throughout the province, is about the lowest in Canada. Generally, there is an underfunding of the health care system, and we see a great loss of specialists in the city of Brandon-ophthalmologists, dermatologists, ear, nose and throat specialists and others. As I stated, Madam Speaker, doctors are leaving; six are leaving this summer, two are retiring, as well, and one of the two existing pediatricians is leaving.

Unfortunately, existing practices are being closed to new patients. They are not receiving new patients. So I believe it is time for the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) to take time out to understand the seriousness of the situation, and I would request of him, along with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer), to set up a mediation process to resolve this situation as soon as possible. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE Minister of Justice Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to use this as my grievance, and it is with respect to what has been happening over the last number of days. I think it is important that as legislators we do have a responsibility of public accountability. What I do not want to do is to reflect in any sort of a negative way on the importance of judicial independence.

As I have asked questions with respect to judicial independence over the last week, week and a half, I try as hard as I can to indicate that it is not trying to question the integrity per se of the system, but there is a responsibility to ensure that there is a sense of public accountability. What I have seen is two issues that have been facing the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Toews), and the reason why I felt that I would stand up on a grievance is because my intentions are to advance Hansard to the Chief Justice, so that at least in my mind I know that I have done what I can in terms of ensuring some form of accountability. There are two issues; the first one is the bilingual candidate, and to that degree, I understand that there was a discussion between the minister and the Chief Justice. There were discussions that talked about the importance of having a bilingual candidate.

From what I understand-and nothing has happened to prove otherwise-the Minister of Justice did not try to direct an individual into a candidate position for the cabinet to select. I understand that there was an expression that was given from the Minister of Justice for the need of a bilingual person but no particular individual, and I think that is an important point.

2972 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 1998 The second thing is the question of the list of seven that was provided, the question being was it in fact rejected or would it be rejected if a bilingual candidate would have not been put on. Well, I stand today because I believe-and people will accuse me of judicial interference, but I do believe the only individual in the province who can really clear the air is in fact the Chief Justice. Failing that, I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) based on the ministerial statement that he put on the record today.

I want to quote specifically, Madam Speaker, and this is what I am hoping that internally the judicial people, whomever they might be, who get the opportunity to possibly read today, will make note of this particular quote: "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." In my opinion, what the Chief Justice-if the minister is quoting accurately when he says that the Chief Justice is aware of this statement and does not have any problems, in essence. with this particular statement-that this statement clearly indicates that it is not conclusive.

When she had left the meeting, she was not finnly of the opinion that the list would in fact be rejected if no other names were brought. Well, that being the case, what we do know for fact is that the Chief Justice is prepared to give attention to what the Minister of Justice has been saying in the sense that she is not ruling it out, the Minister of Justice's

interpretation. I think that is very important to recognize. I have a great deal of concerns. I want to leave that point and go on to the second part, if you like, with respect to the grievance and this is, in essence, what my questions have been about. I think in Manitoba that there is a need for an independent judicial review that takes into consideration not only the way judges are in fact appointed, but goes far beyond that.

I am tired of seeing the number of, and in my opinion, what are quite often abuses that take place within our courts, and I think that the public have a lot of valid concerns and opinions in dealing with frustration in regard to what is happening within our courts. The police sense it, our Crowns sense it. a great deal of Manitobans sense it, and that is the reason why I think that it is long overdue. One of the things that has always frustrated me personally is just the sheer number of remands that take place.

It seems to me that we have remand after remand and a good number, maybe most, the vast majority might be for very, very good reasons, Madam Speaker, but I do question the validity of a number of things that happen within the courts. I recognize as a legislator that there is a very fine line, and some might argue that I have crossed that line in making the statements that I have today. But I would argue that because I believe in judicial independence does not necessarily mean that I believe in no accountability to the public. I think that there has to be some sort of public accountability.

In the name of judicial independence, we have not seen that to the degree in which there should be, and as a result, you have a good number of our public today that have lost confidence in our court system. I do not believe that I am of a minority opinion on this particular issue. If you take the time and you consult with your const ituents and go in-depth on this particular issue, I believe that a vast majority of Manitobans are not too far off from what it is that I am saying in the need to address the issue of our courts. of our judicial system, in a very independent fashion.

I do not believe MLAs should be on it. I think that there is possibly the need to have some individuals who have the expertise and the experience. There is also, most importantly, a need to have individuals from the public participate. That needs to take place. Madam Speaker, we see significant changes in every department of government, whether it is the Department of Health, Education, and so forth. Many of us would argue, including myself, that change is something that has to happen. It is a question of how you manage that change. Well, there has been very little that I have seen in tenns of change.

Maybe it is because I am not in discussion on a day-in, day-out

May 13, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2973 basis, but there has been very little positive change that I have seen over the years, yet I hear very strong demands from the public wanting to see these issues within our judicial system being addressed. I do not want to go to my constituents, ultimately, at the end of the day, whenever the next election comes by and say, because of judicial independence, I, as an MLA, was not prepared to say what I believe needed to happen. Because it does need to happen.

I will emphasize that again, that if in fact this government recognizes the need for changes to occur within our court system and our judicial system, that they need to take some sort of action. The government in Alberta has done so. They have at least put forward a task force. If we recognize that there is a problem today, why do we sit back in our chairs and do nothing? That is not the right thing to do.

I would ask that the government take action and take action today, as I have asked in previous Question Periods, and we strike and look forward to striking some form of an independent judicial review that would in fact lead us into the next millennium. With those few words, Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. *

(1450) ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call the bills listed on page 5, with this exception: call Bill 38 first and then Bill 29 and then following. Then, after those bills have been introduced, would you be so kind as to call Bills 6, 7, 5, 36 , 9 and the remainder in the order you see them on the Order Paper today. Madam Speaker, I would like to correct that: 6, 7, 5, 9 and 36, and the remainder in the order they are listed. Madam Speaker: Okay.

For clarification, second readings, first commencing with Bill No. 38 and then reverting to the order as listed. After second readings, then to proceed to adjourn debate on second readings commencing with Bill 6 and then proceeding in the following order: 7, 5, 9, 36 and then reverting to the order listed on the Order Paper. SECOND READINGS Bill 38-The Planning Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 38, The Planning Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur l'amenagement du territoire et modifications correlatives), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of the House. Motion presented. Mr. Derkach: It is my pleasure to introduce for second reading, Bi1138, The Planning Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. The amendments to this bill come as a result of discussions that have been held between municipal councils over the last number of years.

Municipalities, the developers, individuals throughout Manitoba have been calling for some streamlining amendments to the act, and basically the amendments that we are bringing forward today are for streamlining some of the processes that are involved in The Planning Act.

The objectives of the review that we have done have been to streamline and improve the existing land use planning and development review processes under The Planning Act, and also to standardize notice provisions of various processes as much as possible and to introduce more flexibility and cost-effective alternatives for local government to administer the planning process at the local level.

The objective is also to improve the opportunity for the public participation in the planning process and to make a number of other administrative and housekeeping amendments that will improve the use of planning legislation by municipalities, developers, applicants, and the general public.

Madam Speaker, at the same time I would like to indicate that we are not advancing the larger or the fundamental changes to the planning process and the planning programs because there are still some discussi ons that are being held with the consultation group on sustainable development and implementation initiative and there is also further consultation that is

2974 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 1998 taking place with stakeholders. However, our cl ient groups and those municipalities throughout the province have urged for some time that, while the broader review is being undertaken, the world should not stop, and that we should proceed with some of the amendments that have been outstanding for some time. As a result, my department undertook a comprehensive review and consultation process leading to this bill that I am presenting today.

As a result of the proposed Planning Act amend ments, consultation has taken place with major advisory groups, the stakeholder groups representing the two municipal associations-the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities-the Manitoba Municipal Administrators' Association, planning districts, legal and consulting community and a departmental working group involving key government departments.

Given the administrative nature of the amendments, a public consultation process was not utilized especially because of the significant role played by the key stakeholders whom I have described above. However, it is anticipated that local government, developers, consultants and a majority of the public will welcome the streamlining measures and administrative improvements introduced in the development plan approval and other processes.

Madam Speaker, I would like to just very briefly highlight a few of the amendments of the bill, and I think the most significant amendment relates to the development plan process which will be streamlined. Development plans are currently approved by Order-in Council,

whereas basic planning statements require only ministerial approval. There appears to be some confusion by the public with having two types of plans under this legislation. The proposal that we are coming forward with is to shorten the process and to ensure that the entire process is conducted as one, rather than having two processes, one for the development plans and the other one for plan amendments. In addition, I would like to indicate that all reference to basic planning statements will be eliminated, and the existing basic planning statements will now be deemed to be development plans.

Municipalities or planning districts will now be able to adopt more comprehensive or less comprehensive development plans suited to the needs of the local situation. Where publication in the newspaper is required, we have introduced more flexibility and have made it consi stent with provisions under The Municipal Act. Standardization has resulted in modest improvements for public participation to some processes with respect to public notices now being required for adjacent landowners and the public in general.

For example, for conditional use applications, in addition to public notices, the notices to adjacent landowners, municipalities will now be required to post a notice at the municipal office and two other public places to ensure a complete public disclosure of the intended development. Madam Speaker, the amendments being proposed in Bill 38 will substantially shorten or reduce the time required for development approvals. This is something that has been requested of us by municipalities, by developers, and by the public at large.

So I believe that these small amendments will make a fairly significant difference for municipalities and local governments in helping them to deal with local planning decisions. With these few comments, I would commend this bill to the House. Mr. ClifEvans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that debate be adjourned. *

(1500) Motion agreed to. Bill 29-The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1998 Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finan ce): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), that Bill 29, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1998 (Loi de 1998 modifiant diverses dispositions legisla tives en matiere de fiscalite), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

May 13, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2975 Motion presented. Mr. Stefanson: On March 6 I was pleased to deliver the 1998 Manitoba Budget Address and to present our fourth consecutive balanced budget. I was also pleased to remark that the key measures in the 1998 budget reflected the input of thousands of Manitobans who participated in our consultations.

In meeting after meeting, Manitobans advised that we should live within our means and spend wisely, that we should reduce the accumulated debt, which threatens the next generation, that we should prioritize and enhance spending in health care and provide more resources for education, children, families, and justice, and also that we should keep taxes competitive. Bill 29, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1998, provides specific legislative authority for the tax changes announced on March 6 as well as for minor technical and housekeeping amendments.

Today I will briefly describe the contents of Bill 29, and I look forward to hearing members support the important tax reductions it includes. As in past years, I will provide the opposition with detailed explanations of the provisions of this bill prior to the committee stage. In terms of income taxes, one of the signal rates of a competitive tax system, Madam Speaker, is the personal income tax rate. Manitoba's personal income tax rate has been 52 percent of basic federal tax since 1989, when our government was last able to reduce it.

I am pleased that Bill 29 will amend The Income Tax Act to reduce Manitoba's personal income tax rate to 51 percent of basic federal tax for 1998 and to 50 percent for 1999. This reduction wiiJ provide proportional savings for all Manitoba income tax payers and will complement the reductions in federal basic income tax and surtax announced earlier this year. As a result, Manitobans will pay over $60 million less in Manitoba personal income taxes next year.

In the Budget Address, we outlined a comprehensive approach to supporting post-secondary education in Manitoba, including enhanced direct assistance to students through loans and bursaries, interest relief, debt reduction, and scholarship and bursary initiatives. The budget also announced increased operating support for post-secondary educational institutions and a reconfigured Manitoba Learning Tax Credit. In total, the program changes will provide an additional $16.4 million in support this year. Bill 29 amends the Learning Tax Credit provisions of The Income Tax Act.

The rate of the credit will be reduced from 10 percent to 7 percent of eligible tuition fees and education amounts. A maximum annual credit of $700 per student will also be introduced. At the same time, education amounts for part-time students will be included in the base for the first time. In its new format, the Learning Tax Credit will cost $15 million in 1998-99, and it is the only credit of its kind in all of Canada. In addition to the expenditures outlined above, Manitoba personal income taxes will be reduced by $5.9 million due to changes in federal tax rules for students.

Overall, direct and indirect support for post secondary education students will increase by more than $20 million. In combination, these measures will ensure that access to post-secondary education in Manitoba remains amongst the least expensive in all of Canada. Madam Speaker, the film and video production tax credit our government introduced last year has been extremely successful in expanding Manitoba's film and video industry. Recent media reports have highlighted the impact of Manitoba's tax credit on the number and value of productions planned for Manitoba this year.

Bill 29 includes amendments to incorporate into The Income Tax Act the provisions of the film and video production tax credit previously set out in regulation. A new clause will also permit the Li eutenant Governor in Council to modify by regulation the meaning of certain terms to allow the program to keep abreast of the rapid evolution in the film industry. Madam Speaker, Manitoba's unemployment rate is at its lowest point since 1980 and average wage increases in Manitoba are the second highest in the country. More Manitobans are working and they are gaining more income.

Over the last decade, our government has worked at making Manitoba a more competitive province in which to live and work. One of our key strategies has been to remove as many of the impediments to employment as we could. For business,

2976 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 1998 this has meant reducing the breadth and scope of taxes such as payroll tax, capital tax and sales tax. Bill 29 provides legislative authority for further business tax reductions. The Health and Post Secondary Education Tax Levy Act, the payroll tax, is amended to reduce the rate of tax from 2.25 percent of payroll to 2. 15 percent of payroll effective January 1, 1999. Over the decade, Madam Speaker, we have removed from the tax rolls almost 80 percent of employers who were subject to the tax, back in 1988, by increasing payroll tax exemptions.

Next year, all the remaining employers will see a reduction in the tax rate, making employment in Manitoba a little less costly and offsetting in part the impact of higher Canada Pension Plan costs. The Corporation Capital Tax Act is also amended to increase the exemption from $3 million to $5 million of paid-up capital for taxation years ending after January 1, 1999. Almost one-quarter of corporations currently paying this tax will be removed from the tax rolls. Madam Speaker, the year 2000 computer problem poses a significant risk to all users of computer software which is more than a few years old.

Many businesses are faced with potentially debilitating problems at the beginning of January 2000, unless year 2000 compliance software is put in place. To help business cope with the costs associated with the year 2000 challenge, retail sales tax will not be charged on the modification or purchase of custom computer software after March 6, 1998. This initiative wiii also support the expansion of high technology businesses in Manitoba.

For the mmmg sector, Madam Speaker, Bill 29 introduces an exemption from motive fuel tax on propane fuel used in drying mineral or concentrates and heating mining facilities effective October 1 of this year. For first-time buyers of a new house, Bill 29 wiii extend the new home rebate program under The Retail Sales Tax Act for a fifth year. The rebate of up to $2,5 00, representing the average sales tax paid on materials used in construction of an average new bungalow, will be available on homes purchased before April 1, 1999.

In addition to these measures, Madam Speaker, Bill 29 clarifies certain provisions in the tax legislation and introduces a consistent set of collection and administrative provisions under The Corporation Capital Tax Act, The Gasoline Tax Act, The Health and Post Secondary Education Tax Levy Act, The Mining Tax Act, The Motive Fuel Tax Act, The Retail Sales Tax Act, The Revenue Act, and The Tobacco Tax Act. The measures contained in this biii wiii continue to nourish Manitoba's expanding economy and help create more jobs and opportunities in Manitoba.

I commend Bill 29 to all members, and I thank you, Madam Speaker. Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 39- The Highway Traffic Amendment Act

(2) Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 39, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant Ie Code de Ia route), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to introduce a bill that provides for the forfeiture of motor vehicles used in the solicitation of sex.

This continues our government's response to the problem of street prostitution and, in particular, the plight of child prostitutes who are coerced at a particularly vulnerable age into a life of street prostitution. This bill responds to the problem by requiring police officers to seize vehicles that are being used to commit prostitution-related offences. The bill provides that, where a conviction is obtained for a prostitution-related offence, the vehicle or the security tendered in lieu of the vehicle would be forfeited.

The net proceeds of the forf eiture would support or deliver programs designed to reduce the incidence of street prostitution in Manitoba. This bill continues our government's

May 13, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2977 commitment to reduce the incidence of conditions leading to crime, especially street prostitution. During the last session our government introduced a john school program that is designed to educate johns who are first-time offenders about the harm caused by their actions. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to advise that the john school program has been very successful. The bill I am introducing today will go further to suppress the conditions contributing to the incidence of street prostitution.

The bill contains a number of provisions designed to ensure its fair implementation. For example, there are special provisions in the bill to respond to situations where it would not be appropriate for the vehicle to be forf eited, such as where the vehicle has been stolen. Further, the bill would allow for the release of the vehicle upon payment of security and, in certain situations, registration of a notice under The Personal Property Security Act. We have worked hard to develop a program to remove from johns the most significant property they use to solicit sex.

Cruising in motor vehicles is the preferred method for communicating with prostitutes. Traffic congestion created by pimps and johns cruising in motor vehicles is one of the most visible signs of the harm caused by street prostitution. We believe these measures will constitute powerful disincentives to these kinds of disruptive activities in our community. This, in tum, will reduce the frequency of these prostitution related of fences, leave the roads clear for other traffic, and keep neighbourhoods free of traffic congestion related to street prostitution.

I introduce this bill to the Assembly with a firm conviction that these measures will play an important role in our efforts to address the many aspects of this problem. * (15 10) Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): I move, seconded by the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 40-The Domestic Violence and Stalking Prevention, Protection and Compensation and Consequential Amendments Act Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Gilleshammer), that Bill 40, The Domestic Violence and Stalking Prevention, Protection and Compensation and Consequential Amendm ents Act (Loi sur Ia violence familiale et Ia protection, Ia prevention et l'indemnisation en matiere de harcelement criminel et modifications correlatives), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr.

Toews: Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to introduce a bill which will provide those Manitobans living with the fear and reality of domestic violence and stalking, the strongest civil remedies to address such behaviour anywhere in the country. Manitoba has taken a strong stand against both domestic violence and stalking. Our Domestic Viole nce Court, created in 1990, was the first of its kind in Canada and has proven to be an invaluable tool in the war against family abuse.

Our government has made a firm commitment, through its zero tolerance policy, that domestic violence cannot and will not be tolerated in Manitoba. We have had the benefit of an intensive review of the handling of domestic violence cases in Manitoba and extensive recommendations for further improving the handling of these cases through the public inquiry conducted by the Honourable Mr. Justice Perry Schulman into the tragic murder of Rhonda La voie. The committee I established to review and implement the recommendations in Mr. Justice Schulman's report has been hard at work since the report's release last summer.

Madam Speaker, this government was also instrumental in convincing the federal government, which has exclusive jurisdiction over the creation of criminal offences, to enact provisions to make the stalking of one person by another a criminal offence. We have also been able to persuade the federal

2978 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 1998 government to enact other changes to provide additional protection to persons subjected to stalking. In June 1997, the Manitoba Law Reform Commission released a report on stalking which reviewed the nature of the problem and the existing remedies with recommendations for change.

Recognizing that this government cannot enact criminal penalties for domestic violence or stalking, those being matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, this bill I am tabling today will provide victims with the ability to seek a wide range of meaningful civil remedies to address the circumstances of their own situations. These remedies will supple ment the criminal penalties and strengthen the remedies available to victims of domestic violence and stalking.

Last summer, a Department of Justice working group was established to review existing civil remedies for victims of domestic violence and provide recommendations for change, including the creation of civil remedies for persons subjected to stalking. This working group was composed of representatives from Prosecutions, the Family Law branch, Courts, the Women's Advocacy Program and the Women's Directorate, as well as the former executive director of the Manitoba Law Reform Commiss ion, and was chaired by the director of the Family Law branch.

A thorough review was conducted of the Law Reform Commission's stalking report, the civil remedies presently available to victims of domestic violence contained in our Family Maintenance Act and elsewhere and the related recommendations made in the Lavoie inquiry report. The working group's efforts have also been closely co-ordinated with those of the Lavoie implementation committee to ensure that a comprehensive, consistent approach was taken. They benefited from the invaluable input of members of the community advisory committee on civil remedies for stalking and domestic violence.

This community advisory committee, established by the Lavoie implementation comm ittee, brought to the project expertise and experience related to both domestic violence and stalking. Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, the bill I am introducing today will provide victims of stalking and victims of domestic violence with the ability to seek a wide range of civi! remedies that addresses their individual needs. For the first time in Canada, there will be comprehensive legislation enabling persons to seek civil orders to remedy a stalker's behaviour.

We will also have available the widest range of civil remedies in all of Canada for persons being subjected to domestic abuse. The bill creates two different types of orders, protection orders obtained from a designated justice of the peace of the Provincial Court of Manitoba and prevention orders obtained from the Court of Queen's Bench. I will describe each of these orders in tum. Victims will be able to seek protection orders from designated justices of the peace quickly, simply and inexpensively.

Like the nonmolestation orders currently available from des ignated magistrates in domestic violence cases, there will be simple procedures. In order to ensure that orders are granted speedily, no notice need be given to a person against whom orders are sought. The orders will be available without court fees. Applicants will have to provide evidence under oath about the stalking or domestic violence. A justice who finds that the stalking or domestic violence has occurred and that the victim reasonably believes it will continue will be able to obtain a protection order.

These orders may contain as many of the following provisions as are necessary for the immediate protection of the victim: prohibiting the respondent or other person from following the victim or attending at the victim's residence or place of employment; prohibiting the respondent from following the victim; prohibiting the respondent from contacting or comm unicating with the victim directly or indirectly; giving the victim possession of necessary personal effects; peace officer assistance to remove the respondent from premises and/or to ensure the orderly removal of personal effects; requiring the respondent to tum over weapons; and, authorizing the police to search for weapons.

While applications for protection orders will be able to be made in person, procedures will also be in place to enable applications by telephone with the assistance of a police officer or a lawyer. Persons needing

May 13, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2979 immediate relief will be able to apply to request an order at any time of the day or night. Provisions will be clearly worded to ensure that both parties understood what behaviour is prohibited. While providing victims with meaningful remedies, the proposed legislation will also ensure that the rights of those accused of stalking behaviour or domestic violence are recognized.

Although protection orders will be made without notice, respondents will be able to ask the Court of Queen's Bench to set an order aside and will be given the opportunity to present evidence. Madam Speaker, the second type will be prevention orders granted by judges of the Court of Queen's Bench. In making prevention orders, judges will be able to grant all the protective relief available from designated justices of the peace.

In addition, because these orders are generally made with notice to the respondent, judges will be able to order other provisions they feel are necessary to protect the victim or remedy the domestic violence or stalking. These additional remedies include sole occupation of the family residence, temporary possession of specified personal property, seizure of items used by the respondent to further the violence or stalking, recommending that the respondent receive counselling and prohibiting the respondent from damaging or dealing with property in which the victim has an interest-to name only a few.

As well, judges of the Court of Queen's Bench will be able to order the respondent to pay compensation for any monetary losses the victim has incurred due to the domestic violence or stalking. These losses can include expenses for counselling, security measures, new accommodations or lost income. Where the court is satisfied that a respondent has operated a motor vehicle to further the stalking or domestic violence, the judge can order the respondent's driver's licence be suspended and prohibit the respondent from operating a motor vehicle.

The bill will allow applications to be made for interim or temporary orders without notice to the respondent if the court feels an order is required on the basis of ensuring the victim's safety. The respondent would then, in accordance with the court rules, be given notice of the court's order and an opportunity to respond. Madam Speaker, the bill will also create a new tort of stalking, enabling victims who wish to do so to sue stalkers for damages they suffer.

At present, this can only be done if the stalking behaviour fits within an existing tort such as assault or battery, and this is difficult and often unsatisfactory. *

(1520) Madam Speaker, I recommend this bill to the Assembly with pride and with the conviction that it will make a meaningful difference in the lives of Manitobans suffering from domestic abuse and stalking. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I move, seconded by the member for the Interlake (Mr. C. Evans), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 43-The Victims' Rights and Consequential Amendments Act Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs.

Mcintosh), that Bill 43, The Victims' Rights and Consequential Amendments Act, (Loi sur les droits des victimes et modifications corn!latives ), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Toews: I rise in the House today, Madam Speaker, to address an issue that is of the greatest importance to all Manitobans and indeed to all Canadians. It concerns the important role that victims of crime play in our society and more particularly in our criminal justice system.

Madam Speaker, not that long ago, a person who had been victimized by criminal activity was thought of primarily as someone who could go to court, testify as to what occurred and supply the evidence necessary to convict the person accused of the crime. Unfortunately, this approach overlooked the trauma that victims of crime experience at the time of the offence and during the course of any resulting court proceedings. This

2980 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 1998 approach has also overlooked the fact that victims of crime should not be considered as being victims on the sidelines in the criminal justice process. They are important persons whose views should be taken into account and who should be treated compassionately and fairly by those employed in the criminal justice system. Madam Speaker, the government of Manitoba rejects any notion that victims of crime are mere spectators on the sidelines of the criminal justice system .

I am pleased and honoured as Minister of Justice to introduce a bill that would give to victims of crime a sense of dignity, a sense of autonomy and a sense that they can play an important and valuable role in our justice system . In my view, victims of crime are entitled to a criminal justice system that alleviates their pain and certainly does not increase it. A few years ago, a leading jurist made the following comments that I think are particularly appropriate; first and foremost, the simple matter of distributive justice.

A decent and compassionate society should recognize the rights of its victims and design its criminal justice system to alleviate their pain, not increase it. The crime victim has already suffered the psychological trauma of losing control over his or her destiny. Inconsiderate treatment by the criminal justice system can serve to aggravate the trauma. The system's true purpose is to heal it.

Madam Speaker, my comments today might be somewhat longer than has been my practice in the past, but I feel it is important that the members of this Legislative Assembly fully appreciate the background to the issues raised, the plight that traditionally has faced victims of crime and the manner in which this government proposes to deal with those issues. As a result, my comments will be divided into two basic areas; first, a description of some of the social, political and legal considerations that point to the need for legislation that will support victims of crime.

Second, I will describe the thrust of the bill and will highlight the means by which we propose to elevate the role of victims of crime and support them as they are proceeding through the criminal justice system. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair Throughout the 1970s and the 1980s, considerable attention was directed toward the rights of those persons who are charged with criminal offences. Little attention was given to those who had been victimized by that same criminal activity. There was a growing sense of frustration on the part of victims of crime, and, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that came to a head in 1988 when all Attorneys General throughout Canada, both at federal and provincial levels, endorsed the Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime. That statement echoed principles in an earlier United Nations declaration which Canada had co sponsored at the international level. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to say that many of the principles adopted by Attorneys General in 1988 find expression in the bill which I am now introducing for consideration by this House.

I am proud to say that from the very onset, this government has recognized the need to support victims of crime. That support has found expression in a number of different ways, and I think it is important for me to refer to any number of them as they lay the foundation for the bill for which I now seek the support of this House. One of the first steps involved the establishment of the Family Violence Court in Winnipeg in September of 1990. As Dr.

Jane Ursel from the University of Manitoba has noted, the Family Violence Court was the first of its kind in Canada, and along with this government's policy of zero tolerance when it comes to domestic violence, the court has proven effective in the suppression of violence against women and others who are particularly vulnerable in family situations. At this point, I pause to emphasize something which is important in understanding the role that this government and indeed this Legislature can play in the suppression of crime.

While the Province of Manitoba has a responsibility for the administration of justice in this province, it is only the Government of Canada that can enact criminal laws designed to prohibit criminal behaviour and indeed criminal procedure. Against this background, a series of events took place in Manitoba during 1992 and 1993 which prompted this government to act by pressing the federal government

May 13, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2981 to legislate further protections for victims of crime. Mr. Deputy Speaker, during this two-year period, several men who had been stalking women terrorized and killed their victims in broad daylight on the streets in Manitoba. We pressed the federal government to criminalize this insidious behaviour and, in the summer of 1993, the Parliament of Canada responded to Manitoba's concern by passing Canada's first antistalking legislation in the Criminal Code. I would like to add, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that the federal government's legislation in this area came only after Manitoba took the virtually unprecedented step of having the assistant deputy attorney general in charge of criminal prosecutions testify before a parliamentary committee in support for tough new legislation to deal with humans who stalk other humans. During the next few years, Manitoba continued to press the federal government for further protection for the victims of stalkers.

Proposals put forward by Manitoba became known in Justice ministry circles, even in Ottawa, as the V odrey proposals, because it was the then Attorney General of this province who once again was championing the rig hts of victims of crime at the national level. I am pleased to say that many of these proposals were ultimately passed by the Parliament of Canada and form now a part of the national Criminal Code. During the past few years, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this government has continued to press for reforms to support the position of victims of crime. I would like to comment on a few of those initiatives.

In 1995, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this government established a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the killing of Rhonda Lavoie at the hands of her partner. Mr. Justice Schulman, who headed the inquiry, provided this government with a number of recomm endations, and last year, together with the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), I established an implementation committee under the leadership of Dr. Jane Ursel.

The majority of those recommendations were speedily implemented, and the implementation commit tee is now in the process of working its way through the balance of the recommendations with a view to their implementation. In May 1996, at a federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers of Justice, Manitoba tabled a motion proposing the development of a national strategy in support for victims of crime. That motion was agreed to by ministers, and Manitoba agreed to co-chair the initiative. * (1 530 ) I am very pleased to say, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that when ministers of Justice met last December, the issue of victims of crime was at a the very top of the list for discussion and planning by all 10 provinces, both territories, and the federal government. I am very pleased with the fact that we have been successful in moving victims of crime to the top of the national criminal justice agenda, and I look forward to leadership on the part of the federal government in this area. In the meantime, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this govern ment has not stood still while the federal government seeks to catch up to Manitoba in support for victims of crime.

During the past two years, this government has taken a series of initiatives designed to achieve that very objective. In 1996, this government introduced legislation under which parents would be held financially accountable to victims of crime for the deliberate destructive behaviour of their own children. Indeed, last year this government established a Public Safety Branch with two primary mandates: first, the prevention of crime through grassroots initiatives; secondly, the develop ment of initiatives to support victims of crime.

We have launched a number of successful initiatives, but one of the most significant developments was to seek the views of an independent organization to see how we could best support victims of crime over the years, if not the decades, to come. Prairie Research Associates, who are well recognized in this area, conducted an intensive study and provided my department with a report which outlines a number of recommendations on this issue. Three of these recommendations are especially noteworthy. They are

2982 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May I3 , I9 98 No. I, the government issue a bill or a chart of victims' rights. Number 2, that the Department of Justice create a victims of crime branch reporting directly to an assistant deputy minister; and No. 3, the current Criminal Injuries Compe nsation Act be rescinded and the Criminal Injuries Compensation program be included in new victims of crime legislation. In respect of the creation of the branch reporting directly to an assistant deputy minister, we have done exactly that with the creation of the Public Safety Branch in I9 96.

That brings me to the point of my remarks here today. The bill before this House responds directly to these recommendations. It repeals the outdated Justice for Victims of Crimes Act passed by the former administration in I9 87 and replaces it with a Victims' Rights Act that will lead the country in its support for victims. It also recasts the criminal injuries compensation scheme in the manner recommended by the Prairie Research Associates. I have outlined at some length the background to the emergence of victims' rights in this province during the past I 0 years. I did so for two reasons: first, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I wish to demonstrate in some detail that during the past I 0 years this government has shown its commitment to the victims of crime through a series of innovative and thoughtful policy initiatives, in fact, has assumed a leadership role in this respect throughout Canada. Second, I wish to advise that this government would now like to take the next step by legislating a series of victims' rights and support that will further confirm Manitoba as a leader in Canada, if not in North America.

I propose now to describe the bill in some detail and describe some of the innovative thinking that has led to its creation. You will see that at the commencement of this bill, we have set out a

preamble which describes in general terms the important role victims of crime play and the manner in which that important role ought to be recognized by the various players within the criminal justice system . This government believes that victims of crime should be treated compassionately and fairly by persons employed in the criminal justice system, and so we have said that in the

preamble. We also believe that victims of crime should receive helpful information about the proceedings in which they are involved and their rights in those proceedings. So we have included that in the

preamble. as well. However, we recognize that in a democratic system of government, no rights are absolute. Indeed, even those rights set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a part of our country's Constitution, are subject to limitations that are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. As a consequence, the

preamble notes that the rights of the victim need to be considered in a manner that is consistent with the law and the public interest in a way that is reasonable in the circumstances of a particular case, and this particular issue is very important, given that the criminal law and criminal procedure is federal legislation. So it is not that we are only being consistent with Manitoba law, but constitutionally we are required to be consistent with the Criminal Code of Canada.

While my department was in the process of developing the policy underlying this bill, we were told on numerous occasions by individual victims and by victims' groups that there were three things that victims sought above all else. Those three needs are, in my view, both reasonable and modest. First, victims of crime would like to have information concerning criminal proceedings which have been brought against the person who committed the crime against them.

In most instances, this could simply involve the status of the proceedings, when the case is adjourned to, whether bail has been ordered, the point at which restitution orders may be sought or the date upon which the accused may be sentenced should he or she be found guilty. Other information may be important as well, depending on the circumstances of the case. Secondly, victims of crime seek to have meaningful involvement in the criminal proceedings which have been brought against an accused person.

That is not to say that victims seek to dictate what changes ought to be laid or what sentence ought to be imposed. That properly falls to others who have roles and responsibilities within our criminal justice system. It does mean, however, that they seek to have a role other than simply providing evidence and watching the proceedings in silence. This bill is an important step in providing victims with that role.

May 13, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2983 Third, victims have told us that they wish to have their views taken into account, or as a part of that, wish to ensure that judges, Crown attorneys and accused understand the impact that the crime has had upon their lives and the lives of their families. This is an important point and one which this bill addresses in very specific terms. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this bill has set out a series of

definitions, a few of which are pivotal to an under standing of this legislative initiative. First, the term crime is defined to include all crimes under the Criminal Code as well as those brought in the Young Offenders Act. Second, the term victims is defined to include the person against whom a crime has been committed or is alleged to have been committed, and where that person is deceased or incapacitated, includes other persons such as a family member or a designated representative.

The bill describes a series of general rights of victims which will arise as the victim progresses through the criminal justice system in connection with charges that affect him or her. For the most part, they reflect the principles adopted by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of Justice in 1988, to which I have made reference earlier in my remarks.

These rights include the right to be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect, to receive information about their particular participation in criminal proceedings, to have their views considered, to have reasonable measures taken with respect to their safety, and to have ready access to information about their rights under this bill. The bill also provides for an unqualified right to free legal advice about a victim's rights, regardless of their station in life and regardless of the circumstances in which they find themselves a victim of criminal activity. I believe this provision is unparalleled in Canada.

The bill provides for an entitlement to be given access to free independent counsel, and access to personal information about them is sought under

Section 278.3 of the Criminal Code. We have included this right in response to a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which has the potential to expose personal information about a victim to the court process. We are concerned about this possibility, and we thought it important to provide a victim with full access to legal counsel to ensure that his or her views are fully understood by the courts when making decisions under the Criminal Code.

During our consultation process in the development of this bill, we are told that if this provision is enacted, it will be unparalleled throughout Canada and will place Manitoba in a clear and distinct leadership position across the country. The bill also provides that a victim is entitled, in appropriate circumstances. to have restitution requested, and when stolen property is recovered to have it returned at the earliest possible date. Once again, in our consultations we were told repeatedly that victims of crime are frustrated when their property cannot be returned in a timely way. *

(1540) The bill also provides that victims are entitled to be informed about their rights, potential involvement in restorative justice programs as well as the status of criminal proceedings which have been brought against a person accused of a crime against the victim. This is again one of the situations where this government has endeavoured to ensure that in describing the rights of victims, we do not interfere with a police investigation or criminal prosecution which has been commenced in support of that victim.

For that reason, we have made it clear that the entitlement to information concerning the status of police investigation or any resulting prosecution needs to be balanced against the need to ensure that neither the investigation nor the prosecution is prejudiced through the improper release of information. During our consultation, we were informed by victims that this is the last thing that they would like to see happen. As a result, we have endeavoured to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of police investigations and public prosecution through this provision.

We have been told time and time again that victims of crime are very interested in preparing a victim impact statement that describes the impact which the crime has had upon their life and the lives of their family members. Recognizing that the Parliament of Canada has responsibility for enacting criminal

2984 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 13, 1998 procedure, this government has, through this bill, made it clear that all victims are entitled to participate in Manitoba's victim impact statement program by preparing a written account of the impact the crime has had on them. Again, in this context it is important that our Victims' Impact Program be consistent with the requirements of the Criminal Code. Those who think that we can simply adopt a Victims' Impact Program that does not take that into account are proceeding on very precarious legal and constitutional grounds.

Indeed, t!1ey have no appropriate legal or constitutional basis. This bill also provides fora series of rights involving the Corrections division of the Department of Justice which I feel are important and deserve some commentary. Victims have told us that while information concerning the criminal proceedings is, because of its public nature, available to them, often information about the offender or his or her status becomes unavailable once a conviction has been entered and the person has been placed into a correctional facility or is under supervision in the community.

This bill seeks to overcome this deficiency without, at the same time. compromising the security of our institutions or the safety of correctional staff. It provides that a victim is entitled, on request, to be provided with certain information concerning the offender, and we believe that this is in fact an appropriate balance. It also provides that a victim is entitled to be notified promptly and to be provided with relevant information where an offender who continues to pose a threat to the victim is about to be released or has escaped from custody.

The bill also provides for a victim to confront the offender in a controlled and secured setting and to permit the offender to hear first-hand the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the victim's family. This provision is, once again, unparalleled in Canada, if not North America. I would like to point out as well that under the bill no new cause of action, right of appeal, claim, or other remedy exists in law simply because of this portion of the act. It is clear that this provision ought to be read together with the

preamble of the legislation. The purpose of this legislation is not to provide a foundation for a lawsuit. Rather, its purpose is to ensure that victims of crime receive appropriate information, have meaningful involvement in the criminal proceedings which have been brought against an accused person, and have their views taken into account during the course of criminal proceedings. Put another way, the legislation is not intended to be used by an accused person to defeat the criminal charges brought against him or her.

Rather, the legislation is intended to underscore the role of the victim of crime and to ensure that he or she receives appropriate information and is treated appropriately. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the bill also establishes a scheme to ensure accoun tability on the part of my department and anyone involved in the criminal justice system who has contact with victims of crime. The bill cures that issue, the problem of the prior legislation, which was toothless. This legislation is unparalleled in Canada, if not North America.

Where a victim believes that he or she has not been dealt with in accordance with their rights under the bill, that person can complain to the director of victim support services. The director is required to investigate each complaint and then to take any steps that may be necessary to address those concerns or address systemic concerns. The director is required under this bill to provide the victim with a report. The director, equally, is required to give the victim an opportunity to comment on the report. The director is then required to prepare an annual report which must include a

summary of any comments received for victims during the investigative process. As I have indicated earlier, the Prairie Research study provided us with a recommendation to rescind The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act and to include the provisions in new victim legislation. They also proposed that the program, which is currently administered by the Workers Compensation Board, be amalgamated into the Department of Justice, and we have agreed that those recommendations have merit. My department saw the recommendations as an opportunity to create legislation and a structure that was clearly focused on victims.

It just did not make sense to provide services to victims under legislation and through an organizational structure that was established

May 13, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2985 for workplace safety purposes with no understanding of or expertise in victims issues. Our primary objective in making these changes is to provide a service for victims which is effective, co-ordinated and easy to understand. With that in mind, we have drafted Sections 22 through 4 7 to provide for the operation of the victims' compensation program. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have, I know, gone on for some time, but I thought it was important to put these comments on the record.

That completes my comments at this time concerning both the context in which this bi II is made, as well as the manner in which this bill will operate to support victims of crime throughout the province of Manitoba. I would like to say that I am proud to be the Minister of Justice, to table this bill and to be in a position to advance the rights of victims of crime in this province in a way that serves the public, the public interest and the administration of justice in this province, and I do want to thank my predecessors, the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) and the member for Fort Garry (Mrs.

Vodrey), who had a continuous hand in the development of this, leading us to the stage of introducing this bill. Thank you. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, first of all, on a point of order, I would just like to raise a concern that second reading is the part of the debate on the stage of bills where we deal with the principle. Ministers should not reference specific sections. That is the precedence, and I do not mean that necessarily in a critical way. But I find not just this minister but at times people are debating specific sections.

That is more appropriate to third reading. I would like to ask for your ruling on that, more as advice for ministers for the future on second reading. Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, the honourable member for Thompson does have a point of order. Honourable members should not be referring to specific clauses of the bills during their initial second reading. Mr. Toews: On the same point of order, if that is a concern, I withdraw the reference to the

section numbers. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the honourable minister for that. *** Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Biii 47-The Brandon University Act Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Educ ation and Training): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), that Bill 47, The Brandon University Act;

Loi sur l'Unive rsite de Brandon, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. *( 1550) Mrs. Mcintos h: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill 47, The Brandon University Act, as it enters second reading. The purpose of this bill is to provide separate incorporation of Brandon University. Currently Brandon University is incorporated under regulation 562/88R of The Universities Establishment Act. The new Brandon University Act will describe the structure ofthe university and the internal governance arrangements.

Currently the only university incorporated under separate legislation is the University of Manitoba. Bill 47 carries over the essential features of The Universities Establishment Act and the associated regulation into new legislation. It contains a number of provisions that are designed to ensure that it is similar in content to The University of Manitoba Act and to the proposed University of Winnip

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-4-47
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 4th hansardpdf 47.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	217f3b97e7ba1ba58d3f00148c32931af939afd8

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).