Manitoba Hansard — 29 June 1998 (Sitting 72, 36th Legislature, 4th Session)

36-4-72

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. 72-1:30 p.m., Monday, June 29, 1998 ISSN 0542-5492

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 DRIEDGER, Myrna 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. HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATH LIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH. Gord MALOWA Y, 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 MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Charleswood Pembina Lakeside Interlake Brandon East Portage Ia Prairie Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Pion 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 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. 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.

4957 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday,June29,1998 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS House Business Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): If l may, Madam Speaker, as a matter perhaps of House business, I am seeking leave of the House to let the House know of my intention after Routine Proceedings to introduce a motion amending last week's resolution with respect to the commission of inquiry into alleg ed Ele ctions Act infractions. Madam Speaker: Leave? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Madam Speaker: Leave has been granted. Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Perhaps, Madam Speaker, the government House leader-I am not sure whether he has apprised us of the specific amendments he is going to make. An Honourable Member: There is a note on your desk. Mr. Doer: Okay. Madam Speaker: Leave has been granted. An Honourable Member: There is no leave granted at this time, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: Leave has been denied. PRESENTING PETITIONS Community VLT Plebiscites Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Sp eaker, I beg to present the petition of K. Richards, J. Rybak, J.

Sohor and others, praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to consider permitting communities to hold plebiscites on VL Ts, reducing gambling advertising and increasing funding for treatment of problem gamblers. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Community VLT Plebiscites Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). 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 in 10 years the current government has increased gambling revenues from $55 million to more than $220 million annually; and THAT the introduction and the proliferation of video lottery terminals in virtually every licensed premises across the province has resulted in Manitoba having nearly 5,000 VLTs, the most per capita in the country; and THAT gambling is now the �Manitoba government's third largest revenue source behind only income tax and sales tax; and THAT the provincial government doubled lottery advertising in 1996; and THAT the Manitoba government has become more dependent upon gambling revenues than any other province; and THAT the number of the tragedies involving people who have lost their savings homes and in some cases their lives following gambling addiction continues to grows; and THAT the provincial government spends less than 1 percent of its VLT profits on gambling treatment programs; and

4958 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 29, 19 98 THAT the Manitoba Lottery Policy Review Working Group, amongst many others have requested that communities be allowed to hold plebiscites on banning VLTs as is allowed in Alberta and Saskatchewan. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to consider permitting communities to hold plebiscites on VLTs; reducing gambling advertising and increasing funding for treatment of problem gamblers.

Mining Reserve Fund Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen). 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.

WHEREAS mining is an annual billion-dollar industry in Manitoba concentrated almost entirely in northern Manitoba; and

WHEREAS the Manitoba mmmg indusny directly employs more than 4, 300 people pumping more than $240 million in wages alone into the provincial economy; and

WHEREAS part of the mining taxes on operating mines goes into the Min ing Reserve Fund; and

WHEREAS the Mining Reserve Fund was set up for the welfare and employment of persons residing in a mining community which may be adversely affected by the total or partial suspensi on, or the closing down, of mining operations attributable to the depletion of ore deposits; and

WHEREAS the Min ing Reserve Fund had more than $15 million on account as of April 1998, despite withdrawals by the provincial government of more than $6 million which was put into general revenue; and

WHEREAS many mining communities having contributed millions of dollars to the provincial economy for many years are now nearing the end of their known ore resources and as such this fund is extremely important to the future of these communities in northern Manitoba; and

WHEREAS in order for a new banking service to establish a branch at Lynn Lake it has been suggested that they would need a minimum of $12 million on account. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Min ister of Energy and Mines to consi der transferring the account of the Mining Reserve Fund to a banking service in Lynn Lake should such a facility meet provincial standards. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Law Amendments Eighth Report Mr.

Jack Penner (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): Madam Speaker, I would like to present the Eighth Report of the Committee on Law Amendments. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments presents the following as its- An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense. Your committee met on Thursday, June 25, 1998, at 4 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider bills referred. Your committee has considered: Bill 46-The Correctional Services Act;

Loi sur les services correctionnels and has agreed to report the same with the following amendments: MOTION:

June 29, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4959 THAT the definition "offender" in subsection 1 (1) be amended by adding the following after clause (c): and includes an individual who has not been convicted of an offence but who is subject to the terms of a court order which requires the individual to report to or be in communication with a correctional officer; MOTION: THAT

section 43 be struck out and the following substituted: Search 43(1) A search of an individual, place or property within a custodial facility, or of an offender under supervision of a correctional officer outside a custodial facility, may be conducted in accordance with the regulations or as otherwise permitted or required by law. Seizure 43(2) A property or substance may be seized and dealt with or disposed of in accordance with the regulations (

a) where possession of the property or substance by the person in whose possession it was found or in the circumstances in which it was found is prohibited by the regulations or by the rules established under

section 25; (

b) where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the property or substance may, or may be used to, adversely affect the health or safety of a person or the security or maintenance of order within a custodial facility; (

c) where it may be evidence of or relating to a disciplinary or criminal offence; or (

d) in any other prescribed circumstances; or as otherwise permitted or required by law. Regulations respecting search or seizure 43(3) A regulation respecting searches or seizures under this

section may be made to apply to all custodial facilities or to specified custodial facilities or specified areas within custodial facilities. MOTION: THAT subsection 59(1) be amended (

a) by striking out clause (

w) and substituting the following: (

w) respecting searches under subsection 43(1); (

b) in clause (x), by striking out "prohibited property or substances found within custodial facilities" and substituting ''property or substances for the purpose of subsection 43(2) ". Mr. Penner: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that the report ofthe committee be now received. Motion agreed to. Committee of Supply Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has consid ered the motion regarding concurrence, directs me to report progress 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. * (1 335) TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report for 19 97-98 for the Manitoba Horse Racing Commission. Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I am tabling the Report

4960 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 29, 19 98 and Recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Committee. Madam Speaker: As required under

Section 38 of the Indemnities Allowance and Retirement Benefits Regulation, I am pleased to table the members' annual reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 19 98. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Premier's Investigation 1995 Election Mr. Gary Doer (Leader ofthe Opposition): Madam Speaker, it has been reported over the weekend that more than advice was given to Native Voice candidate Darryl Sutherland. In fact, Kris Barrett, son of Cubby Barrett, both of whom are known Tory supporters. ordered 1, 000 buttons from Maple Leaf Rubber Stamp.

I would like to ask the Premier: did he invest igate this issue of being actively involved in the campaign as part of his investigation, and did he invest igate this matter with either Mr. Sokolyk or his Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), who was the co-chair of their campaign committee and a member of the PC Manitoba club? Ron. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, obviously I would have had no knowledge of rubber stamps being ordered, so I could not have made that investiga tion. Mr.

Doer: Madam Speaker, the Premier stated on June 24 in this Chamber: I spoke to the people in our party who are responsible for campaign organiza tion. They had absolutely no knowledge of this alleged affair. I would like to ask the Premier: did he talk to Mr. Sokolyk about this so-called campaign organization, and was he mis leading the House or was Mr. Sokolyk mis leading him? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I was not mis leading the House.

Obviously, the members opposite have been calling for a complete and independent inquiry, and by virtue of the note that I have sent to the member opposite, I have indica ted to him that we are prepared, whenever members opposite give us leave to do so, to amend the resolution which was introduced last Thursday to appoint former Chief Justice Alfred Monnin of the Court of Appeal as the commissioner of inquir y to get to the bottom of all these allegations. I think that it does not benefit anybody other than perhaps New Democrats to make a political football of this, Madam Speaker.

We want to get to the bottom of this. We have the means of an inquiry being set up that will get to the bottom of it. I would suggest to the member opposite, if he has any allegations to make, that he ought to make them to the Honourable Alfred Monnin and to get on with the matter of trying to in vestig ate this as thoroughly as possible. Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the Premier never answered the question. Of course, we must remind him that a week ago he said there was nothing to the allegations.

Then he said two days later it was going to be referred back to Elections Manitoba, and then on Thursday he said we had to be satisfied with returning to the Chief Electoral Officer. We attempted to influence the government all Thursday night. The Premier has changed his position four or five times in the Chamber on the process to deal with this. What worries me is the Premier may be changing his word in this Legislature, which is subject to Question Period, I mi ght add, in which we will continue to raise questions.

Madam Speaker, the Premier never answered the question of whether he spoke to his chief political staff, Mr. Sokolyk, about the issue of campaign resources for the Native Voice candidate in the Interlake riding. I would like to ask the Premi er: as part of his investigation, did he discuss this issue with Mr. Cubby Barrett, a member of the PC Manitoba Fund and a col league of the Deputy Premier, as a member of the PC Manitoba Fund? * (1 340) Mr.

Filmon: As I indi cated, Madam Speaker, subsequent to my making certain inquiries, very, very shortly after that, probably within hours, it was not only reported publicly but various different interviews took place that indica ted that the Chief Electoral Officer had control of the investigation, so I did not proceed to go through and talk to all 23,000 members of our party in the province. I put my faith and trust in the process that all of us support under The Elections Act and The

June 29, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 496 1 Elections Finances Act and the inves tigat ions of the Chief Electoral Officer, which is the appropriate way that it should be done. So, Madam Speaker, I say to the member opposite, if he really wants to get to the bottom of this, what he ought to do is have his party deal with the resolution that is before us and get on with the appointment of retired Chief Justice Alfred Monnin so that all of us can be assured that we are going to have all of the facts and all of the relevant information on this matter. Mr.

Doer: Madam Speaker, the Premier in this Legisl ature, in Hansard, stated: I spoke to the people in our party who were responsible for campaign organizati on. I ask agai n: did he or did he not speak to Mr. Sokolyk, the principal secretary of the Premier, the campaign organizer, one ofthe fundraisers of the Tory party? Did he or did he not speak to him about this matter? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I will say unequivocally that I spoke to Mr. Sokolyk about this issue.

The fact of the matter is, though, that members opposite want to twist this and say did you ask him this, did you ask him that, was he here, was he there-all those things. That is the kind of thing that ought to be investigated thoroughly and completely by retired Chief Justice Alfred Monnin, and that is the process that we are prepared to put in place. I would urge members opposite to get on with it. Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, when the Premier discussed this matter with his principal secretary, was he assured by his principal secretary that they were only giving, quote, advice to the Native Voice candidates?

Was the Premier alerted to the fact that this was way beyond advice? The member for the Interlake (Mr. C. Evans) is correct. He was running agai nst two Tory campaigns in the riding. Was he told or informed that in fact they were ordering specific resources for the Native Voice candidate right out of the PC headquarters in the Interlake? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, those are all things that should appropriately be looked at by the Chief Justice, and we will trust his inve stigation and conclusions. Mr.

Doer: I trust the Premier now is going to expand the scope of the-I am pleased to see he is making changes every day. I would hope now, Madam Speaker, that the Premier will expand the scope of the inve stigation to look at the ethical action in the Premier's Office and to look at the morality of what has happened. So, if he is truly courageous today, he will agree to expand the scope to go beyond just the narrow scope that was given to the former commi ssion on Thursday last? I would like to ask the same question to the Premier.

Given the fact that he said he invest igated this matter with his-and I want to get the quote right-p eople who are responsible for fundraising and campaign organization, did he discuss this matter, investigate this matter with the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) who is a member of the PC Manitoba Fund and also the co chair of the election campaign for the Conservative Party? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, this is precisely the kind of questioning that should be asked by the inquiry.

That is precisely the kind of-the innuendo, all the innuendo, all the allegati ons, all the things [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Filmon: I cannot respond when I am being shouted down by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). * (1 345) Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I asked the question: did you or did you not discuss this matter as part of your invest igat ion with the co-chair of your election planning committee and a member of the PC Manitoba Fund, one Mr. Downey?

I would like to ask another question: did you discuss this matter pursuant to your commitment in Hansard that you would discuss this issue with your campaign organizati on? Did you discuss this with Val Hueging? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I think all of these things are appropriate matters that should be investigated by the inquiry.

4962 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 29, 19 98 Mr. Doer: Again the Premier is stonewalling. If he wants to expand the scope of this investigation to include the morality and lack of ethics in the Premier's Office, we would welcome that kind of change. Madam Speaker, a further question. You did not answer whether you discussed this as part of your investigation with your Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey). You did not confirm or deny that you had not discussed it with Val Hueging. I would like to ask the Premier the same question.

As part of your investigation, a person well known to the Premier, a person who has contact with the Premier, Mr. Cubby Barrett, a member of the PC Manitoba Fund-did he investigate Mr. Cubby Barrett when he made the statement that they had, quote, absolutely no knowledge ofthis affair? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the only stonewalling that is taking place right now is that by the New Democrats who refuse to permit the appointment of a commission of inquiry with former Chief Justice Alfred Monnin in charge.

As long as they want to do that, that is fine, but we now know what their interests are in this, and they are not in getting at the truth. They are only their own political interests. Commission of Inquiry Scope Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I think we are getting somewhere. The Premier has said he is interested in getting to the truth. The public is interested in getting at the truth. Will the Premier expand the scope of this investigation to include the decisions made by him, his senior staff, his campaign staff? Will it include the ethics of what happened in the Interlake, Swan River and Dauphin?

Will it include the allegations of the biggest political immor ality that ever happened in a recent political election in Canada? Will he expand the scope and get to the truth? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, there is no limi tation to what former Chief Justice Alfred Monnin can do. In fact, if he needs any alterations with respect to time, with respect to anything, he will get them. I made that commitment last Thursday, and I repeat that commitment now. Commission of Inquiry Public Process Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My questions are for the Premier.

Over the weekend, Madam Speaker, most members of this Legisla ture heard public discussion about Tory alleged activities in the 19 95 election. Some of them were reflected in the press in comments such as, and I quote: if the allegations are true, then it is a political scandal of significant proportions; the Premier should recognize that these are serious issues of ethics and morality; and assertions that this has undermined public confidence in the democratic process in the province.

I want to ask the Premier to do the right thing, to ensure as he can that the inquiry is a public inquiry, and that a written record of testimony is kept and made public. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the member opposite makes my point. We have to ascertain if the allegations are true. That is why we have a commission of inquiry with someone, I believe, of the highest respect and integrity, former Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal of this province. The members opposite made comparisons to when Wilson Parasiuk was being investigated, and they appointed the predecessor to Mr. Monnin, Mr. Freedman.

I have absolute and complete faith and trust in Mr. Monnin to get to the bottom of this. Ms. Friesen: Will the Premier make the commitment today then that the inquiry will be made in public, that testimony will be kept in written record and will be made available to the public so the public may judge? Those are the clear principles on which we found our legal system. Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, Mr. Monnin, as retired Chief Judge of the Court of Appeal ofthe province of Manitoba, knows and understands the pri nciples of our legal system I think slightly better than the member for Wolseley.

So I would not presume to tell him how to do his job. He will be required to make his findings public so that all of the information that he gathers and all of the conclusions and recommendations that he makes will be made to the public.

June 29, 19 98 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4963 * (1 350) Ms. Friesen: I want to ask the Premier how the public interest of Manitoba is served by having an inquiry in which we will never know, we may never know, who has testified and what their testimony was. We may never be able to draw our own conclusions. How is the public interest of Manitoba served in that case? He has the power to do it. Why will he not make that commit ment? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, you know, it is one thing for members opposite to have said last week that they do not trust the Chief Electoral Officer.

It is yet another thing for them to say that they do not trust or have confidence in the integrity of- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Filmon: It is another thing for the member for Wolseley to be challenging the integrity and the ability ofMr. Justice Monnin. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, I think you know and 1 think the rest of the House knows that I challenge the Premier's integrity in not calling a public inquiry. I never indicated any question about Judge Monnin or any other judge in this province.

The issue is: whv would the Premier not call a public inquiry with publi � evidence and a written record? Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Wolseley does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. * * * Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, we do not wish to compromise Mr. Monnin's independence in any way. He will have the decisions to make. He will be required, however, to make all of his findings public so that the public will know the results of his invest igati on.

Madam Speaker, the member opposite knows that her coll eague for Crescentwood argued that some people should not be interviewed because they were afraid of their circumstances. He was not willing to give us names of people. He said people feared being investigated and being publicly identif ied. They cannot have it both ways. Commission of Inquiry Public Process Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Over the past week we have seen a rather remarkable spectacle in this House, given the fact that we are clearly faced with one of the largest political scandals involving elec tion fraud in recent history in this country.

The first step of the Premier was to say it was not new. Then he attacked the people who were making the statements public about the involvement of very senior Tory officials. He then went back to the CEO. Today he is appointing a judge. I would just like to ask the Premier: why does he not go the final step and give Judge Monnin what he needs to be able to do the job, the scope to do the job and the ability directed out clearly in the motion to have public hearings to make sure that we restore our confidence in the electoral process in this province? * (1 355) Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, that is precisely what we have done. We have given Judge Monnin the capability to do what he needs to get the job done, and if in any way he feels constrained, he has the ability to ask for more resources, for more time, for whatever he needs to get the job done. We are quite prepared to give it to him because we want to get to the bottom of this. Premier's Investigation 1995 Election Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a supplementary questi on.

4964 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 29, 19 98 Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, if the Premier expects anyone to believe that this Premier, who a week ago was completely stonewalling, wants to get to the bottom of this, will he at least go one step further than he did earlier today when he confirmed, after one week of questioning, that he did speak to Taras Sokolyk? Will he now indicate who else he spoke to and not start by stonewalling the inquiry even before it is started by refusing to answer questions about Val Hueging, Cubby Barrett and others today in Question Period?

Why will he not indicate whom he spoke to? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I can assure the member for Thompson that every single member in our party, that every single member of our government will co-operate absolutely, completely with the inquiry, with Judge Monnin. This is the only way to get at it. So the only people who are stonewalling right now are the members opposite who refuse to deal with the resolution, who refuse to give the- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Filmon: -who refuse to approve the inquir y so that it can get on with the job.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a supplementary. Commission of Inquiry Scope Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): My final supplementary: will the Premier recognize that one of the major concerns we have about this inquiry is the scope, and partic ularly, will he ensure that such questions as to whether Cubby Barrett, who was integral and part of this vote fraud scheme-wi ll he ensure that the question of whether he also received a liquor licence in Cross Lake in June of the same year, when the previous owner had been denied that on three separate occasi ons-will he ensure that this inquiry has the ability to look at whether indeed there was any kickback to Mr.

Cubby Barrett because of his involve ment in this vote fraud scheme? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, under The Evidence Act, the inquir y has a wide, wide mandate in which it can operate. Anything and every thing that might have relevance to the allegations that are being made can and, I am sure, will be investigat ed. Chief Electoral Officer LAMC Meeting Attendance Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I am personally absolutely disgusted. I feel very shameful to be inside this Chamber with what I have seen happen, and I think this goes to both sides.

We have undercut the independence of Elections Manitoba. Now, if we have a complaint with respect to an election, are we expected to go to the government of the day in order to call for an appeal? This government has done a disservice to the independence of Elections Manitoba. My question to the government is: will it have the guts to call for an LAMC meeting, to call for a Privileges and Elections -and the Elections Manitoba office should come before it. Either this government supports Elections Manitoba or it dismisses the Chief Electoral Officer. You cannot have it both ways. Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy for the motivation behind the member's outburst. Last week both he and I said on numerous occasions in this House that we had complete confidence in the office ofthe Chief Electoral Officer and that he was the appropriate body, given his responsibility for The Elections Act and The Elections Finances Act, to carry out this inquiry. But, as a servant of the Legislature, the Chief Electoral Officer places great impor tance on enjoying the confidence of all members of this House.

Unfortunately, given the public crit icisms and comments that were made on the record, the Chief Electoral Officer contacted the Clerk of the Executive Council on Friday to indicate that he did not feel that he en joyed the confidence of all members of this House. Therefore he asked not to be burdened with that responsibility as the commiss ioner of inquiry. * (1 400)

June 29, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4965 So, Madam Speaker, I think we are fmtunate to have Mr. Justice Monnin agree to do this. I believe the former Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal is indeed somebody who will carry this out absolutely thoroughly, absolutely completely and with all integrity and ind ependence that this inquiry requires. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I want to make it very clear.

It was the Chief Electoral Officer then, from what I understand, given the Premier's response-} ask the Premier. it is because of the Chief Electoral Officer's request to be withdrawn out of the process that in fact that has occurred. It is not because the govern ment of the day has decided to undercut Elections Manitoba and the independence of that office. Mr. Filmon: Yes, Mada.-n Speaker, the ChiefEle ctoral Officer has asked the government to withdraw his name from appointment as the commissioner. Mr.

Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, given that, I would ask that the urgency of dealing with the independence of the Elections Manitoba office, which Manitobans for years have trusted their confidence in, in terms of providing a democratic process for all Manitobans, will the Premier acknowledge that in fact there is a need for an LAMC or a Privile ges and Elections commit tee to sit down with that particula r office to restore all-party confidence in that office? If that cannot be done, it is time the CEO leave. Mr·. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the law guarantees his independence.

I would fear that, by having him come at the request or demand or invitation of the House, we would be treading on that independence. So I have to say, with all due respect to the motivation and the sincerity of the member opposite, that I do not agree with his urging. Commission of Inquiry Scope Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I am sure that the First Minis ter has received the same kind of advice that we have from legal authorities, that the scope of this inquiry is very specifically li mi ted by the wording of the motion which he has put before the House.

The limi ting of the scope to The Elections Act and The Elections Fi nances Act does not provide for other il legalities that may have occurred, for example, potentially under the Crimin al Code, or in regard to the questions of ethics or morality. Will the Fi rst Minis ter, in addition to appointing former Chief Justice Monnin to head the inquiry, amend this motion so that the scope is broad and expressly includes issues beyond The Elections Fi nances Act and The Elections Act? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): In fact, Madam Speaker, we have received just the opposite advice, that in fact the Order-in-Council, which would be passed to make the appointment, says specifically under No. 2 recommendation that nothing set out above shall be taken in any way as li miting the right of the commi ssioner to petition the Lieu tenant Governor in Council to expand the terms of reference to cover any matter that the commissioner may deem necessary as a result of inf ormation coming to the commi ssioner's attention during the course of the inquiry.

I have said here and will repeat publicly anywhere that we would not deny any request to expand the inquiry in accordance with the commissi oner's wishes. Mr. Sale: Will the First Mini ster not recognize that the motion that he has put before the House limi ts the inquiry specifically to The Elections Act and The Elections Fi nances Act and to actions occurring during the period prior to and during the 19 95 election, not after it? There are many things alleged to have occurred that occurred after and were not specifically related to The Elections Finances Act.

Will he not recognize he has limited his- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr. Filmon:

Section 83(1 )(

d) of The Manitoba Evidence Act, which the member opposite quoted from last week in urging us to make this appoin tment, says: "the election of a member to the Legisla tive Assembly or any alleged attempt to corrupt a candi date at any such election, or a member of the Legislative Assembly after his election, or the payment or contribution for campaign or other political purposes, or for the purpose of obtaining legisla tion or obtaining influence and support for franchises, charters, or any rights or

4966 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 29, 19 98 privileges, from the Legisla ture or the Government of Manitoba by any person." I mean, that covers everything that has been said by the member opposite, by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), by all the various different allegations. It seems to me that the commissioner has indeed all the scope that he requires. Commission of Inquiry Premier's Office Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): To the Premier, Madam Speaker.

I am sure the Premier understands that both he, as Premier, and his office are under a cloud as well in this whole matter, and indeed the Premier's Office is the highest office in the rrovince. It is under a cloud because the chief of staff for the Premier is impugned, and he is the Premier's adviser, we understand, on tacti cs, and, second, that the Premier did an inve stigation allegedly into these matters.

Will the Premier not admit that it is important to the public of Manitoba that his office also be subject to the commission of inquiry, that it is important for people to know what the Premier knew, what he did not know, what he asked and what he did not ask of others? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I am committed to co-operate in any way with the commissioner of inquiry, and I will make myself avai lable to answer any and all questions regarding any and all allegations, insinuations, innuendo or whatever is brought forward with respect to this matter. Commission of Inquiry Scope Mr.

Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Does the Premier not understand then that the resolution currently before the House restricts the invest igation by the commissioner into matters that occurred during and prior to the election, not following the election and particularly not including matters of any alleged cover up or lack of questioning since even as late as this week or last week? This is too strict. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, if it canvassed because I know that the comm1sswner, retired Chief Judge Alfred Monnin, would not want to have members opposite making continuous allegations about either (

a) his competence, (

b) his scope or (

c) his independence. He will not want those loose ends to be left at all, and so the members opposite can feel very, very confident in his commitment to get to the truth of the matter. Mr. Mackintosh: Will the Premier not understand and admit that the former Chief Judge's mandate and scope of review is determined by this Legislature, not by he himself? It is determined not by an Order-in-Council but by a resolution that is currently before the House, a resolution, Madam Speaker, that is too restrict ive. * (1410 ) Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, far be it from me to try and explain to a former Deputy Clerk of this House and a lawyer that what we are doing is not passing the scope in this House. We are making the commitment, as the act requires, to the appointment of the commission. The appointment of the commission, its terms of reference and its scope are contained within the Order in-Council. I repeat: that Order-in-Council says under (2�and that is in accordance with

Section 83(2) of The Evidence Act-that nothing set out above shall be taken in any way as limiting the right of the commissioner to petition the Lieutenant Governor in Council to expand the terms of reference to cover any matter that the commi ssioner may deem necessary as a result of information coming to the commissioner's attention during the course of the inquiry. As I have indicated to the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), if any request comes, it will be granted. [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Filmon: Because we cannot anti cipate everything. [interjection] We cannot anticipa te- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. is relevant, I have absolutely no doubt it will be Madam Speaker: Order, please.

June 29, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4967 Commission of Inquiry Public Process Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, Manit obans take great pride in their right to exercise their votes. However, actions taken by this government during the 19 95 general election effectively dise nfran chised many of my constituents. I want to ask the Premier if he does not think he owes it to my constituents to publicly investi gate this whole election-rigging scandal. Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I am reminded a little bit of trying to respond to Rumpel stiltskin who has just slept through the entire Question Period today. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Film on: I apologize. I correct the record. I meant Rip Van Winkle, not Rumpelstiltskin. Madam Speaker, this is the purpose of the inquiry. This is why former Chief Justice Alfred Monnin is empowered to be able to make all those investigations, so that any concerns that the member opposite or his constituents have will be addressed by the inquiry. Commission of Inquiry Scope Mr.

Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, is it any surprise that the public is somewhat skeptical about the Premier's pronouncements today, when every single issue that we had to get out of this government, we had to drag out of them kicking and screaming, and it took an entire week of questioning, newspaper inve stigations, TV and radio investigations to get the Premier to come this far. My question to the Premier today then is: is the Premier today guaranteei ng-because it still takes 0/C power to expand the scope of the investig ation-in saying that there is no request he will deny from the Chief Judge?

If that is the case, why not put that in the order that he is bringing before this House this after noon? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I have already made that commitment three times during Question Period. I will repeat it. Yes.

We will not deny him any request in accordance with the statement that says: nothing set out above shall be taken in any way as limi ting the right of the commissio ner to petition the Li eutenant Governor in Council to expand the terms of reference to cover any matter-any matter-that the commissi oner may deem necessary as a result of information coming to the commissioner's attention during the course of the inquiry, which flows, I mi ght say, from

Section 83(2) of The Evidence Act which says: "The Lieu tenant Governor in Council may revoke, modify or enlarge the scope of any commission." Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS NHL Hockey Draft Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): This weekend I had the opportunity to see Manitoba's youth take a giant step closer toward their dreams. I attended the 19 98-99 NHL hockey draft in Buffalo where five Manitobans were drafted to teams in the National Hockey League.

Madam Speaker, all members in the House today should be proud of the five young men from across Manitoba that worked hard and were all drafted in the top four rounds. These young men include Chris Neilsen of Woodlands who was drafted by the New York Islanders, Jomar Cruz of The Pas drafted by the Washington Capitals, Jamie Hodson of Lenore drafted by the Toronto Maple Leafs, David Cameron of Winnipeg drafted by the Pittsburgh Penguins, and Brent Hobday of Dugald drafted by the Detroit Red Wings. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the parents and the families of these hockey players.

Most hockey parents have attended many games and practices, even as early as five and six o'clock in the morni ng, as well as expending considerable amounts of their savings to get these young men to where they are today.

4968 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 29, 19 98 I would also like to thank the hockey coaches who have supported these young hockey players to pursue their dreams and work harder than they ever thought they could. Today we see that their work is paying off as they become the property of teams across the National Hockey League. I am very proud of these young athletes and I wish them great success as they move closer to playing their first games as members of their respective NHL teams. Thank you, Madam Speaker. * (1 420) Chief Electoral Officer Mr.

Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, over the past week we have witnessed the spectacle of the Firs t Minister (Mr. Filmon) first denying there was a problem, then acknowledging that there mi ght be a problem, that Elections Manitoba mi ght want to look into it, then finally, on Thursday, recognizing that indeed there was a problem and appointing a com mission, taking the unfortunate step of putting Mr. Balasko in the position of holding that office. I want to be very clear that we hold Mr.

Balasko and his office in the highest regard, that we believe that the government opposite- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all honourable members that this is Members' Statements and the honourable member for Crescentwood was interrupted partially through his comments. The honourable member for Crescentwood, to complete his member's statement. Mr. Sale: As I was saying, Mr. Balasko was put in an impossible position by this government, and the Chief Electoral Officer has- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Sale: He has acted with great wisdom, as befits his office, by recognizing that it was necessary for him to not be put in the position the government wished to put him in. I want to reaffirm the faith of our party in his independence and in his wisdom as Chief Electoral Officer of this province. It is a sad comment on the state of democracy that this Premier has had to back down and reverse his field something like six times in the past five sitting days. We are glad that Chief Justice Monnin is going to be appointed. That was what we called for. We are pleased with that.

We will support this inquiry, and we commend the Chief Electoral Officer for his courageous stand, Madam Speaker. Hire-a-Student Week Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Today is the kickoff to Hir e-a-Student Week in Manitoba, which allows all of us in this House to recognize the importance of summer employment for our future leaders and entrepreneurs. Our government believes it is impo rtant to have in place an economic environment that encourages job creation and benefits young people.

In partnership with businesses, schools, communities and other levels of government, we are fulfilling our commitment to help young Manitobans find summer jobs. Highlig hting the fact that Manitoba's youth employment rate is one of the lowest in the country is that there has not been a shortage of work for university students who began the job search much earlier this month. Today, on the Legisla tive grounds, a job-a-thon is being held to help high school students who are now ready to begin looking for work.

Besides the job-a thon, the 34 government-funded Manitoba Youth Job Centres and the 13 student human resource centres across the province are working closely with local communities to help job seekers throughout the province and throughout the summer. Honourable members would agree that a summer job goes beyond the opportunity for a young person to earn some extra cash. Summer employment gives students an opportunity to build skills that they need to compete in the global marketplace. As well, by hiring a young person, an employer gets a hardworking, enthusiastic employee.

So I encourage all honourable members to join me this afternoon in recogniz ing Hir e-a-Student Week from June 29 to July 3. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

June 29, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4969 Immigration Agreements Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Our government recognizes the need that exists for a steady flow of skilled immig rants. We know that Manitoba's booming economy has resulted in labour shortages in some business sectors. We also know the imp ortance of our province having a direc t say in the recruitment of new Canadians. It is therefore most encouraging that our government, in partnership with the federal govern ment, has entered into two agreements that will result in increased imm igration responsibilities flowing to Manitoba.

The first agreement will see the federal government transfer $7 milli on over two years to Manitoba for settlement services such as language training and job counselling for new immigrants . The second agreement will allow Manitoba to designate up to 200 immig rants annually over the next four years that it wants to bring into the province for economic reasons or to assist reuniting families. We were one of the first provincial governments to use the special provincial designation in 19 95 to have some 200 garment workers imm igrate to Manitoba to address the labour needs of that industry.

Today's agreements are about strengthening the role of Manitoba, in terms of immig ration, because Mani toba and not Ottawa knows the labour require ments of our growing industr ies. We are committed to working in partnership with imm igrant groups, industry and the federal government to continue building the province that is the best place to li ve, to work, to invest and to raise a family. Thank you, Madam Speaker. 1995 Election Mr.

Stan Struthers (Dauphin): I rise on a member's statement to put some words on the record on behalf of constituents in my riding who in 19 95 were presented with some b ogus choices when it came to casting their ballots. I use the word "bogus" because of the allegations that have been put forth over the past little while having to do with the aboriginal voice candida te who was run in Dauphin. Many of my constitue nts were di senfranchised by the moves made allegedly by people in the Progressive Conser vative Party as far up as the Premier's Office itself.

Now, Madam Speaker, I belie ve that this govern ment right now today owes it to my constituents, whom they effectively dise nfranchised in 19 95, whom they denied the basic right of being a Canadian, a basic right of being a member of a democratic socie ty, that is to vote-I believe that this government owes my constituents, No. 1, an apology but also to conduct this inquiry in the fullest, most public way that they can, not just that the recommendations and conclusions be made public but that the testi mony itself of the people who are subpoenaed before this inquiry should be made public as well.

Madam Speaker, all Manitobans want to know these answers. I also indi cate that this Premier owes it to my constituents, whom he dise nfranchised three years ago, to broaden the scope of this inquiry to include the unethical conduct and the cover-up activities and the benefits received by agents of the Progressiv e Conservative Party just over three years ago. So I urge the Premier to come out of hiding and make this public inquiry public. Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAY DEBATE ON GOVERNMENT MOTIONS Hon.

James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you please call the government motion noted at the top of page 4 of today's Order Paper, on the proposed motion of the Attorney General (Mr. Toews), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minis ter of Justice (Mr. Toews), sta ndin g in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Is there leave to permit the motion to remain standing? [agreed] * (1 430) Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, at the opening of today's sitting, I was seeking the leave of this House to let honourable members know of my intention at this stage now ofthe proceedings of the House to introduce a motion amending last week's resolution with respect

4970 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 29, 19 98 to the commission of inquiry into alleged Elections Act infractions. Madam Speaker, the government had approached the Chief Electoral Officer and he had agreed to undertake the commission to investi gate the alleged infractions under The Elections Act and The Elections Fi nances Act. As a servant of this Legisla ture, the Chief Electoral Officer places great im portance on enjoying the confidence of all members of this House, and I believe this goes to the points being raised today by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

Unfortunately, given the public comments and the criticisms that are now on the record, the Chief Electoral Officer has ind icated to the government that in his view he does not enjoy the support and endorsation of all members of this Legisla ture to carry out this inquiry. Accordingly, the Chief Electoral Officer has asked that the government withdraw his name from nomin ation. Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Chief Electoral Officer and the office of Elections Manitoba have not been able to continue to en joy the full confidence of all the members of this Legisla ture.

I would like to stress the im portance of clearing the air and getti ng facts on the record to remove suspicion and innuendo. The government has approached another indivi dual to serve as the commissioner, and as we already know, the Honourable Alfred Monnin, former Chief Justice of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, has agreed to undertake this commission. Now, there has been discussion during Question Period today about the role and function the Honourable Alfred Monnin will carry out.

I am a former Attorney General, and I was privi leged to be Attorney General during the latter part of this honourable jurist's career. Mr. Justice Monnin has a long and dis tinguished record as a lawyer and as a justice in Manitoba courts. He has also served on the electoral Boundaries Review Commission and played an instrumental role in the establis hment of the new Franco-Manitoban school division. Mr. Justice Monnin's record is exemplary. We have every confidence that he will carry out this commission with honesty and integrity and will provide a thorough and complete report on his findings.

Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Mini ster of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), THAT the motion be amended (

a) by striking out "the Chief Electoral Officer" and substituting "The Honourable Alfred M. Monnin"; (

b) by striking out ", as set out in the attached proposed Order in Council"; and (

c) by adding the following: AND THAT the attached proposed Order in Council be amended before it is signed by the Li eutenant Governor in Council to reflect the appointment of The Honourable Alfred M. Monnin as Commi ssioner. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Motion presented. Madam Speaker: I have been advised that the amendment is, indeed, in order. Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I would just like to put a few words about this amendment.

When my colleague for Inkster asked his questions, some members from one side of the House laughed at the suggestion that the returning officer be brought before a committee of this Chamber. I think that the process has gone astray. Regardless of the exact words that were used, there is a perception in the public that the independence of the returning officer has been questioned, that the competency of the returning officer in doing that investig ation has been questioned. It exists out there, and we are the employers of the chief returning officers, this Chamber.

As employers, to be fair to that person, we should give him the opportunity to come forward and answer those, not in some-whether it is a publ ic, a judicia l inqui ry-as employers we have a responsibil ity as good managers that right now that same returning officer is drawing up boundaries. Now, those boundaries, if you have doubts about the inde pendence of the returning offic er, could those boundaries then be viewed as being politically

June 29, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 497 1 motiva ted? You know, maybe Point Douglas as a riding would be elimina ted, because there is a perception out there that the returning officer's independence and competency has been questioned. So to bring him before LAMC-and I know we cannot order him, but we have had the Ombudsman before LAMC. We have had the returning officer when we wanted to hear about a status report about the boundaries. We have not ruined his independence about information about computerization. We have had a number of officers.

They come all the time before LAMC and, yes, it has to be by agreement of all parties. If we cannot have that, then the government has a responsibil ity, in my view, to call a Privile ges and Elections Commit tee to have Rick Balasko clear any doubts, any doubts whatsoever about his competency and independence. You know, in the halls, I have heard from all members on all sides of the House that this Mr. Balasko, how competent he is, how he worked under the previous returning officer and what a good man he is. Myself, I was not here when he was interviewed and hired.

My dealin gs with him have been very brief, and I have never had any problems, but there is that perception. For that reason, regardless of what is happening about the investig ation, regardless of whether it is Judge Monnin, retired Judge Monnin, or anyone else, we still have this problem that this spectre has been raised. We still need the chief returning officer of Manitoba to have his opportunity to say: I did a good investigation. I am independent. If you have any doubts, you ask me here and now, not by some other outside party.

That is shirking our responsibi lit y as employers and as managers of this employee, so I do not think that the question by my colleague from Inkster is laughable. I think it was a sincere question. It was a good idea, and it still stands to be a good idea. Even on how this amendment came about, I am hearing two different versions. I am hearing from one side of the House that it was because of legal opinion that he could not do the inquiry. He could not reinve stigate an investigation he had already done.

He could not hear matters that he had already dealt with, and it was for that reason-but then I am hearing from the government's side it was because he felt he did not have the confidence of all members of this Chamber. * (1 440) I am getting second-hand information. [i nterjection] Well, the member says it is his own words. I never heard them. I am getting them second hand.

That is why I would like the returning officer of Manitoba to come before a commit tee of this Chamber, whatever commit tee, so that I could ask those questions, so my constituents could feel that I have confidence in the chief returning officer so they could have confidence in the chief returning officer of Manitoba. That issue has to be dealt with regardless of whether Judge Monnin or Rick Balasko hears this matter. If that had been done first, as we suggested earlier last week, then maybe Rick Balasko would have felt confident to deal with this matter in an open and public hearing.

Possibly it is because of the legal opinion. I do not know what his motivation is , because I have not spoken to him. I feel he should have that opportunity. Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity in speaking to this motion in dealing in the first part of my comments with respect to the issue of the Chief Electoral Officer. Madam Speaker, members on this side of the House do not question the validity or the integrit y of the members who have made the point they have made, but I think we disa gree with the methodology that has been chosen by those members.

First off, from our perspective, we are not questioning the confidence-our viewpoint of the ind ependence of the Chief Electoral Officer. We believe that the Chief Elec toral Officer enjoys at this point our confidence. That is not the issue. What is the issue? What is at issue is the govern ment's error in the first place when they found themselves in the middle of a political quagmire in the mid -part of last week in trying to dump off onto the

4972 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 29, 19 98 Chief Electoral Officer a solution to solve their problem. Now, the government should have thought clearly several issues. First off, there were legal difficulties with providing the Chief Electoral Officer with the abil ity-in fact, we do not even know if he had the legal authority to, in fact, rein vestigate, so the government should have thought that through in the first place. In fact, the government made two errors. First they said the Chief Electoral Officer will engage in an inquiry.

We reviewed the act, and we doubted seriously whether, in fact, they had the legal authority to do that. I believe the government received legal opinion after they made the political decision that it is going to go to the Chief Electorial Officer. They received legal opinion that said you cannot do that. Subsequently, in order to deal with the political issue, they then said: we are now going to expand it to a commission of inquiry to satisfy the opposition, but we are going to use the same person.

We stood up and said the problem with using the Chief Electoral Officer is the Chief Electoral Officer was involved in the original investigation. How can you use the same individual, whether the individual was credible or not, to reinve stigate the same situation? That is unprecedented in a legal inquiry. We do not send back to the same court a decision that was made by the court. We go to an appeal court or we go to another court. So the government put the Chief Electoral Officer in an untenable position.

Later on, as we moved along, as the government saw there were more political troubles involved, now the government presents us with an option of going to retired Chief Justice Monnin in order to conduct an investigation. Madam Speaker, let me draw a parallel in this situation to another inquiry that is ongoing in Manitoba at this point. I direct the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) to perhaps recognize the simila r situation.

During the crisis that occurred at Child ren's Hospital with the baby deaths, the Chief Medical Examiner of the province examined and did autopsies on some of the babies but at that time did not raise any red flags with respect to what happened with those baby deaths. Subsequently, because of information that came out, there is an inquiry that is now being conducted by a judge. At the inquiry, the Chief Medical Examiner of the province has been called to testify before the judge about his methodology and his approach to dealing with the baby deaths. That is as it should be.

At the time, we never said we do not have confidence in the Chief Medical Examiner. We did not say: fire the Chief Medical Examiner. We did not say: call him before a legislative committee. What we said was: call the Chief Medical Examiner before the inquest, review the Chief Medical Examiner's methodologies, and determine whether there are deficiencies in the office and whether the Chief Medical Examiner conducted the operations properly, whether he had enough staff, et cetera, because, precisely parallel to this situation, the Chief Medical Examiner had reviewed all I 0 baby deaths and no red flags had gone up.

Now we have a sit uation where the Chief Electoral Officer of the province has reviewed irregularities that occurred in the 19 95 election. You know, Madam Speaker, to take my parallel even more, it would have been simila r to the government saying: gee, the Chief Medical Examiner should have done all of the reviews of the baby deaths and should have conducted the inquiry. We would have been against that. In fact, we were against that, because part of the examination has to be of the way the Chief Medical Examiner's office dealt with the baby deaths, whether it was right or wrong. We are all human.

Mi stakes may have been made. Mi stakes may have not been made. In this situation we are dealing with a simila r fact situation. The Chief Electoral Officer examined the situation and assured all parties, in the small "p" sense, all individuals involved, that nothing was wrong. New evidence has come to light.

Rather than having an inde pendent investigation, the government hung on tooth and nail all last week and has sort of made announcements today of something they should have made last Tuesday or last Wednesday, and that is, at least move it towards a more independent individual, because we are going to have to examine the methodology chosen by the Chief Electoral Officer in reviewing the case in the first instance. Now, there are amendments before the Chamber that deal with part of the methodology, and that has been dealt with in this Chamber, but part of the process has

June 29, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4973 to be what went wrong in the initial examination or what went right. This will afford us with an opportunity to examine the role and functioning of the chief electoral office. So, Madam Speaker, certainly to me and I believe to members on this side of the House, it is eminently logical that an independent party ought to examine this situation. I fault the government, and I said it last week.

The government put the Chief Electoral Officer in an untenable position, politically and otherwise, by forcing on the Chief Electoral Officer a reinves tigation of something that he had done before and then asking the Chief Electoral Officer to assume powers and duties that were beyond his scope.

If the Chief Electoral Officer said to the government and the Premier, I am withdrawing my name because I do not think I have the capabili ties nor do I think I should conduct this investigation, then the Chief Elec toral Officer made the right decision, but the decision should not have had to have been made by the Chief Electoral Officer. The decision ought to have been made by the Premier (Mr. Fil mon) in Order-in Council through

Section 83(2) of The Evidence Act, and the government should have made a proper choice in the first instance and not subject the chief electoral office to the possibil ity of being tainted politically because that is precisely what happened as a result of the government putting the Chief Electoral Officer in an untenable position. Now, I do not know, Madam Speaker, what happens when the chief electoral office gets an Order-in-Council from the government that says you have to do this. Perhaps the Chief Electoral Officer in the first instance should have ref used. Perhaps he should have.

I am not questioning his competence at thi s-! am not questioning confidence in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. He should not have been put in that position, and perhaps in the first ins tance he should have said no rather than wait and have all of this controversy potentially taint the office of the Chief Electoral Of ficer. So there are problems. If, in fact, the Chief Electoral Officer returned to the government and said I do not believe that I should and could, I think that was the right decision.

I think that was the right decision. [i nterjection] * (1 450) The member for Emerson, for Pembina, the member says that we questioned his authority, his ability. I defy him to point out when we said we questioned his ability. But let me put this on the record then. Does the chief electoral office have the expertise to conduct an inquir y of this size and of this scope? I would suggest, and I will put it on the record, I do not believe so. We believe that only a judge or someone with sophisti cated legal training is capable of conducting an inquir y of this kind.

The chief electoral office is not set up for this kind of a role under The Evidence Act. That is cl ear, and you on that side of the House put him in an untenable position to get yourselves out of a political mess, and that is where the mist ake was made and that is what is going to hang over your heads, and that is what was wrong. You ought not to have put him in a political position of that nature and that kind, and that was where the mis take was made. [interjection] The member says we pushed him in too far. Madam Speaker, let me retrace some of the history of this issue. One week ago today the Premier (Mr.

Film on) stood up and said there was nothing to these allegations; in fact, the Premier had conducted an investigation and there was nothing to these allegati ons. The next day the Premier asked the chief electoral office to re-examine the issue. The next day the Premier stood up and said we are setting up a commission of inquiry. Today the Premier stood up and said now we are having an independent judge set up the commission of inquiry. Madam Speaker, how does that sit with the comments of the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) who suggests somehow that we set this thing up? It just does not square.

This has been a difficult week for the government, and this has been a difficult week for the province of Manitoba, but in the end democracy can and will prevail in the province of Manitoba. In the end, I suggest, truth will come out, and the government will be judged on the basis of the truth that comes out. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that Mr. Sutherland is not telling the truth, that Mr. Cubby Barrett is not telling the truth on certain issues, that the member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans), who swore an affidavit, is not telling the truth, that the member for Crescentwood (Mr.

Sale) is not telling the truth, and I

4974 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 29, 19 98 think that stretches credibil ity pretty far. The only reason that we are here today and the only reason we are debating this issue is that the government has found itself in a terrible political position. The first strategy was to try to stonewall and sit it out; the next strategy was to attack the credibil ity of all of the witnesses; the next strategy was to try to move it along inappropriately to the chief electoral office. Now, the latest strategy and the latest tactic is to move it on to a judge for review and investigation.

Our problem, Madam Speaker, and it continues, and it was a question that we raised with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) today, is the scope of the investiga tion. Now, it was very interesting in the last reply before the end of Question Period, the Premier ind ica ted on the record that they would give whatever powers and whatever extent they wanted for the investigation to the Chief Justice.

My question to the Premier, my subsequent question would have been, then why is that not established in the Order-in-Council, given that breadth within the Order-in-Council and the ability not to have to return back to the Premier to ask the Premier's permission to get something he says they are going to do regardless?

Then if that is the case and given the stretched credibility of the Premier's statements all week, please, I do not think it is stretching one's imagination for us to be somewhat suspicious of statements of the Premier that have changed remarkably, remarkably, dramatically, since last Monday, and, in fact, ind icate to the Premier put within the terms of reference the broad scope of the investig ation that you say you are going to guarantee is going to be allowed if the justice comes back to you, but the justice must come back to you, unfortunately, to get an Order-in-Council which you say you are going to guarantee.

Then we say why do you not broaden the scope of the inquir y without the need for the Chief Justice to come back to the Premier for an Order-in-Council if, in fact, your words are true and you are going to guarantee it anyway, but at least broaden the terms of reference for the inquiry, because this is not nitpicking. Remember the history of this issue. We have gone from Monday of last week when the Premier was denying any problem, any irregularity, till today when the Premier is saying, we want to get to the bottom of it. The government has taken a 360-degree tum on this, Madam Speaker.

If that is the case, then why not simply go the extra mile and make it plain and stop all of this second guessing? Because the biggest mi stake made by the government was to not move the issue along in the first instance . The big gest mi stake by the government-! know members opposite recognized it-was to allow it to build and build and build to the point where now the government is forced to do many of the things that we had asked them to do but a week ago, but which they actually denied. So this amendment and this entire process is something that must be dealt with broadly with the expanded scope.

Members opposite ask why a public inquiry. You know there is an interesting argument that is made by the Premier, and it is not a very strong argument. One of the arguments made by the Premier against the public inquiry is witness protection. We acknowledge that; we raised it. Now, surely, one would consider that we should go the opposite way as it is in court. The issues are all public.

If the judge views it in the best interest of personal safety, et cetera, the judge can rule as they do on a daily basis that the information not be made public, rather than going the other way saying nothing is public and we will leave it till the report. Think about that, Madam Speaker. Think about the il logic of the Premier's argument when he stands up and says, well, there is a witness worried about their personal safety. If that was the law or that was the prevai ling thesis or theory in the judicial system, that would set back our legal system 400 years. There is a presumption that everything is public.

There is a presumption that it is public, and it is the exception that it is held in camera. You are saying it is in camera exclusively. So the argument of the Premier is totally illo gical and borders on, well, I dare say, it borders on very thin ice, as have been most of the arguments that have been put forward, most of the contradictory arguments that have come forward in this Chamber all last week. So from there to here, from last Monday to this Monday, I dare say the issue has moved dramatical ly.

I welcome the fact that we have a forum, at least at this point, of a public inquir y, not a public inquiry, a forum of a

June 29, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 497 5 ju dicia l inquiry, something we called for as early as last Monday. All it took was five Question Periods, numer ous headlines in the papers, numerous TV coverages and numerous radio. Madam Speaker, you could have saved yourselves a lot of political damage and a lot of political problems by simply ceding to the obvious in the first place. You know, it goes farther than ju st the Conservative Party. You have tarnished the reputation of Manitoba in this country by vir tue of hanging on and obfuscating and stalling as long as you did last week.

I talked to someone from Toronto yesterday on the phone. You know what? The only thing they could remember or could mention from Manitoba was the scandal, the Conservative government scandal. That is all that they knew about happenings in Manitoba. Why was that? If you had moved to a ju dicial inquiry in the first instance, we could have been spared the spectacle of a government being forced to backtrack day after day after day. * (1 500) An Honourable Member: You do not even believe that, do you? Mr. Chomiak: Of course, I do. For the member for Rossmere (Mr.

Toews) who should have recognized in the first instance that the right thing to do last Monday would have been to call a judicial public inquiry, you would have saved your party, you would have saved your government, you would have saved the reputa tion of the province a lot more than what you have done in this process, now that you have been dragged kicking and screaming into an inquiry and even to that extent that you are not making this matter public.

Madam Speaker, at least from my limited experience, these are the most corrupt allegations probably since the corruption that occurred and since charges were laid against members of Sir Rodmond Roblin's government at the beginning of the century. Now there may have been other scandals, but these are the most corrupt that I have been familiar with since Sir Rodmond Roblin's government that fell as a result of those charges, where criminal charges were laid.

These are very dis concerting, and the allegations are very, very severe and quite serious beyond anything that I could even think the government or the Conservative Party was capable of. Bu t the evidence is very compelling. Let me go through some of the evidence, Madam Speaker. A candidate says that the Premier's assistant and a key Conservative member, a fundraiser for the Conser vative Party, put money forward and paid for his campaign. It goes further than that. That candidate, who was on social assistance, was able to donate money to another two candidates who also ran for that particular party .

We have a former Tory candida te confirming that, in fact, the Premier's assistant said at a meeting, job well done, job well done when the funding was talked about. We have the Deputy Premier sitting on the PC Party fu ndrai sing comm ittee with the same Cubby Barrett who is alleged to have provided the money, and who said publicly that he did provide money to the candidate who ran for the Native Voice party. We have that same Cubby Barrett who coincidentally obtained a liquor licence that had been refused three times shortly following the election.

We have that same Cubby Barrett' s son being seen putting up election signs for both the Conservative Party and the Native Voice party. We have that same Cubby Barrett's son-[inter jection] The members laugh, Madam Speaker, but I think that some of this ought to be taken quite seriously by members. This is disgusting, and I am not even dealing with the ethics or the morals of it. We have a former Tory candidate saying that he was present at a meeting. We have two MLAs who were present at a meeting where Allan Ai tken stated that, in fact, Taras Sokolyk was present at a meeting and said: job well done.

Now the same Allan Ai tken, who could not be found for several months, appeared Monday or Tuesday night to say not only did he not say that, which he should have been instructed to say, I presume, but said he was not at any meeting. He was not even at a meeting with these people. Well, that will come out in the evidence, whether or not one Allan Ait ken said what he had said but, in fact, was even in atte ndance at a meeting that three other people are prepared to testify that he was at. Does that stretch cred ibility? [interjection] The member for Arthur- Vir den (Mr. Downey) says let us get at it.

We have been trying to do that for a whole week and the government stalled, stonewalled

4976 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 29, 19 98 and stalled and sat on the information for an entire week before they finally had the courage, before they finally, to use the term s of the former Premier, screwed up the cou rage to call a form of a ju dicial inquiry. It took a whole week of questioning in this House and headline arti cles. The members opposite know that is why we are having a form of a judicial inquiry at this point. We find out on the weekend that one Cubby Barrett's son happened to fund the badges for a candidate for Native Voice.

Perhaps, as members opposite say, he is an advocate of dem ocracy and that is why he did it. That is why he spent upwards of $1 ,000 of his own money to pay for badges for a candidate who says that he was paid for those, but we will leave that aside. Perhaps that is a coincide nce that it happened to be Cubby Barrett's son who happened to sit on the same committ ee as the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), who happened to be present at a meeting, who happened to be the one who is alleged to have given the money, who happens to be the sub ject of a meeting where Taras Sokolyk said job well done.

Perhaps that is all coincidence. But perhaps not. Bu t, finally, we are at a point, we are moving towards, after a week of stonew alling, we are going to have a form of a judicial inquiry, and we are hopin g [ inter jection] Is that not what we are debating right now? Oh, and I like the argument by members opposite. They say pass it right now. You said the same thing last week when you wanted the Chief Electoral Officer to have an inquiry. Then you said the same thing last Thursday when you wanted to have a lim ited inquiry with the Chief Electoral Officer, and now you are saying pass this sight unseen.

You want to get this out of your bailiwick so badly and you want to stop the headlines so badly that you are willing to move it. I appreciate that . I understand that you want to bury the political scandal. I understand you want to go on. I recogniz e that, but had we acquiesced to your stonewalling last week, we would have been doing the people of Manitoba a disservice. If we had sat down and listened to what the Pr emier (Mr. Film on) said last Monday, there would have been no inquiry, there would have been no evidence. The Premier said nothing was wrong.

The Premier said: I conducted my inves tigation and I was assured by party officials that there was nothing wrong. We would have sat down and listened to the words of the Premier and said nothing was wrong. Yes, this will be interesting. The members opposite stretch credibility even further by dealing with the five months argu ment, saying, oh, members on this side of the House sat on the information for five months. We were aware, and we knew that the government had done something wrong.

We have known for a long time that the government had done something wrong, and we knew since 19 95 the government had done something wrong, but what we needed were witnesses to come forward who had the courage and, Madam Speaker, I admire the courage of those witnesses who came forward, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Aitken, your former candi date, who had the courage to come forward and state the truth, or state their facts so that it could be reviewed. I said many times to the Pr emier (Mr.

Filmon) during the course of the week that the best defence is a good offence, and it is pretty obvious from the feeble attempts of members opposite to refute our claims that that is precisely the course of action that they are following. How did they accom plish this? They attacked the cre dibili ty of Mr. Sutherland. They attacked the cred ibili ty of their own candidate, Mr. Ai tken. They attacked the cred ibility of everyone who has testified.

They attacked the credibility of both MLAs who wished to testify and who said they wanted the opportunity to testi fy, and that is effective on the polit ical front, but I do not think it is being bought by the general public. That is why today we are sitting and debating a form of a judicial inquiry that we are going to be-that hopefully will be undertaken as soon as possible to try to clear the air in this province. * (15 10 ) This is not fu n. This is dis tasteful. This is disgusting.

I would much rather deal with the govern ment's failings in a whole series of other areas than have to deal with their failings on this front. Perhaps the commission will report that there was nothing done wrong. Perhaps the commission will come back with a favoura ble report for the government, but they ought to be afforded that opportunity. I am thankful that we stuck to our guns. I am thankful that Mr. Su therland

June 29, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4977 came forward and thank ful that Mr. Aitken came forward. I am thankful tha1 Cubby Barrett spoke to the public and spoke to the media and said, yes, he did forward money. I am thanl�ful that the evidence about the payment by Cubby Barrett's son came forward . I am thankful that the public has some idea of what goes on. I am thankful this in formation is out, and I am hopeful that there will be a public commission so the public will have an opportunity to look at all of this information and make their own ju dgments and make their own decisions.

Is that not what the government wants? Ift he government is so confident of its position, then why not make it public? Why not allow the evidence and let the public refute i�? Let the public make up their own minds. [interjecti•m] The members say it will be. This does not read in tt e Premier's own comments today which said that the results will be public but that the commission itself will 1ot be public. An Honourable Member : How do you know? Mr. Chomiak: How do we know? Well, we need assuran ces. We need it in ,v riting, because everything the government has said in the last week has proved to be wrong.

Pardon me, I do not believe the comme nts of the Attorney General rom his seat, when every single issue that came out last week the govern-ment had to back track on and tht� government had to change its mind on. Do you pos� ibly believe that we could possibly believe your com ments when we want it in writing because every single comment has been so unsupported and not followed up on. We want it in the terms cf reference, and we want it obvious. We want it written down.

It has been written down in the past, and I dec lt with the former Min ister of Justice on the inquest with respect to the baby inquiry, and we had di sag ·eements. We still wanted that to be a public inquiry. �till the inquest is going on. But we had broad, broad, broad terms of reference and there was no suggestion, as there is today, that the hearings would not be in pt blic. I remind you again, a whole ju dicial system exi sts on a presumption that information is public and it is an exception when it is in camera. Bu t you are doing the exact opposite.

I do not think we would be doing the public any service if we back down from our claims and our demands now for a public inquiry, because I believe we did the public a service in moving the government from there is nothing wrong and no investigation Monday, to Tuesday's limited inquiry, to Wednesdays inquiry with the Chief Electoral Officer, to today's movement towards a judicial inquiry. We sti ll owe it to the public. We owe it to the people involved.

We owe it to all Manitobans, not ju st to clear, if names have to be cleared, if reputa tions have to cleared, or if ju stice has to be brought to those who have contra vened not only laws, but regu lations, but we owe it to all those people to hold a public hearing, to have it in public, allow Manitobans to make their own decisions, allow Manitobans to make their own judgments about this matter, and to make it a public process, not to hold it behind closed doors. This is an issue that affects every single Manitoban because every single Manitoban has the right to vote.

Every single Manitoban was affected by what happened or what did not happen in 19 95. We owe it to all of them to have a public inquiry and to hold it as open and nonpartisan and as independent and as arm's length as possible. Madam Speaker, mem bers opposit e question our motives and ask why we demand this be in writing. From what happened last Monday to what happened today is like night and day. How often do I have to repeat that? On Monday, the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) said there is nothing to it; on Tuesday, there was a limi ted inquiry; on Wednesday, there was an inquiry by the Chief Electoral Officer; today, now, it is a ju dicial inquiry. We have moved it along. I am not saying it is entirely us. I am not trying to take credit. What I am trying to say is: do you blame us for not trusting the government?

Surely, if you look at the controversy, if you look at the contra dictions in sta tements, in fact, it is incum bent upon us to question the government on this, and, in fact, to hold them accounta ble, to make ce rtain that every "t" is crossed and every "i" is dotted. Madam Speaker, having said those comments, I want to reiterate this is not a question of confidence in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. It is the government who put the Chief Electoral Officer in an untena ble position. It was the government's fault for

4978 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 29, 19 98 trying to move a decision that they should have made in the first place to go to a ju dge, the Chief El ectoral Officer. You made the mi stake. You put the Chief Electoral Officer in a difficult position. Point of Order Mr.

McCrae: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I did not rise earlier because I thought maybe honourable members opposite would correct themselves and I would not have to say anything, but throughout the day today honourable members opposite have been breaking the rule about the use of the second-person pronoun "you." It has been happening all day, and the failure to address their comments through the Chair is again creeping into the practi ces of honourable members opposite.

Now, Madam Speaker, these things rarely, but sometimes also happen on my side of the House, so I do not make this comment to say that this is only the memb ers of the opposition that do this. However, it certai nly has been the case today, and I wonder if you would not mind calling honourable member s to order on that point. Mr. Chomiak: On the same point of order, Madam Spe aker, I think the government House leader is co rrect. I will in the future reference all references to you to your government, which I think would be appropriate, or the government or votre gouvernement or whatever.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable government House leader (Mr. McCrae) indeed did have a point of order, and I thank the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomia

k) for acknowledging it and indicating that he will comply with the rules of the House. *** Mr. Chomiak: I am just going to wrap up, Madam Speaker, by again stressing the fact that the government is the one who put the Chief Electoral Officer into an untenable position and made it most difficult.

The evolution of this issue was one of the most extra ordina ry I have seen in my years in this Chamber, moving from "there is nothing wrong" to "now we are going to have a form of judicial inquiry." All we ask is you keep listening to the public, that you keep listening to what we have to state and that you have a proper process put in place, so that we can get to the bottom of these issues for the benefit of all Manitobans. Thank you. Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I, too, would like to put some comme nts on the record in respect of this particular issue.

I have listened with some interest to the comm ents from the members on the other side, and I want to ensure that the mes sage coming from this House is that we are not preju dging any issues here. I know that the members opposite sometimes refer to their remarks as allegations. On other dates they ref er to them as evidence. They seem to believe that the matter is a fait accompli, that they have the truth, that they know the truth , and that they are the only ones who are so blessed with the truth.

Madam Speaker, I think that the direction, first of all set out by the motion and now the amendment to the motion, is, in fact, the appropriate way to proceed. When one looks at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, clearly that would have been the most appropriate manner in which to deal with an allegation of this type. There was a particular concern with the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer, and the resolution and the proposed Order-in-Council, in fact, would address that. * (1 520) The Chief Electoral Officer would have been empower ed with the powers of a commissioner under

Section 83 (1) of The Evidence Act, which gives a comm issioner the power to examine the election of a member to the Legislative Assembly or any alleged attempt to corrupt a candidate at any such election or a member of the Legis lative Assembly after his election or the payment or contribution for campaign or other political purposes or for the purposes of obtai ning legislation or obtaining influence or support for franchises, charters, or any other rights or privile ges from the Legislature or the government of Manitoba by

June 29, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4979 any other person. The commiss ioner certai nly has the broad powers to look at th lSe situa tions. We have heard the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) say in this Chamber over and over again that if it is an issue of the scope of the inquiry, sw:h scope can be expanded as the comm issi oner reques :s. That has been put in writing. Indeed, the oral strtements of the Premier have been taken down by Hansa�d.

They are here for every one to see that, in fact, the Premier and this govern ment, in fact, would not deny the commis sioner an increase in the scope of his inquir y if that is so requested. So that was the state of affairs last week with the proposed appointmen t of 1 he Chief Electoral Officer. The Chief Electoral Offic,!r not only had the powers that are granted under The Evidence Act, which deals with the ability to sum me n witnesses and to require witnesses to give evidence · mder oath either orally or in writing. I think that is very, very impor tant to point out.

The matter stated here ; s that it should have these powers. We believe that these powers should be there, and those powers are there. So, unfortuna tely, after the commen ts made by merr hers of the opposition in respect of the Chief Electoral Officer, it was clear cert ainly to me and members on this side of the House that the Chief Electoral Off cer did not have the support of members of the opposi1 ion. I think that is regret1able because this is the indiv idual who, in fact, had the expertise, the ability and, I think, . the very dir !Ct knowledge of how the elections system works here in Manitoba.

I think that expertise would have been very, very helpful in terms of ensuring that all matters relevant to this commission are brought forward . But :he Chief Electoral Officer, having heard the comments made by members opposite, did not want to comprom i;e his office in any respect, and I think that we respec t his desire not to bring his office into any controver sy. It is unfortunate , as I have indica ted earlier, given his experti se and given his independence. So, Madam Speaker, the motion then goes to remove the name of the Chief Electoral Officer and substitute another very highly qual tied candidate.

Now the mem bers opposite say: nc·w we are having a judicial inquiry. Well, they are again being very fast and loose with their words. This is not a ju dicial inquiry. It is a commission that has been brought forward as it has been done in many other cases; this is not a judicial inquiry. The powers are under The Evidence Act, and I reference again the powers of the commi ssioner. But the membe rs are again very loose with their words. They suggest that now they have a judicial inquiry. Well, this is, to a great extent, a bit of mischief .

They know that very recently the Chief Justice of Canada has communi cated to all first min isters, all atto rneys general, and indeed the public is aware, that the Chief Justice of Canada would prefer that ju dges not be appointed to these types of commis sions of inquiries. The members know that. So we, in respect of the Chief Justice's position, in respect of federal judges where he has clearly made those comm ents-and it was for two reasons the Chief Justice made those comments.

Firstly, it was his position that it may well cause undue resource pressures on the court, and secondly, it may compromise the independence of the judic iary. I think we have seen certain situations very recently where, in fact, ju dges have become drawn into the political fray because of their appointment to a parti cula r commission. I am referring to the inquir y into the examination of the blood supply.

In my opinion, certai nly the Chief Justice of Canada' s commen ts, I think, can be dir ectly attributab le to his concern that judges not be politically compromised by serving on boards of inquir y or commissions. I think that is a very good dir ection by the Chief Justice in order to maintain the independence of the executive and the independence of the judic iary and keep those two fu nctions separate and apart.

Fortuna tely, we have available to us the expertise of a retired ju dge who certa inly, if this Order-in-Council then is passed, will, in fact, have the independence that is provided under The Evidence Act and the broad powers that are given to a comm issioner under The Evidence Act. This former judge also has the expertise of being able to not only admin ister an inquiry in a judicious fashion but also has the expertise of having dealt with former commissions of inquiry. I understand that he and his recommendations were instrumental in the crea tion of the Francophone school board and

4980 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 29, 19 98 school division. So here is a person who has not only judicial expertise but, in fact, has the power and the abilities to conduct an inquiry based on The Evi dence Act and also on his prior experience. Mr. Justice Monnin has a long and distinguished career as a lawyer and a Justice in the Manitoba courts. He was first a Queen's Bench Judge and then was appointed to the Manitoba Court of Appeal where he eventually served as the Chief Justice of the Cour t of Appeal.

I would also indicate that he does have expertise in respect of elections, having served on the Electoral Boundaries Review Commission. His record is exemplary, and I know that we on the government side have every confidence that he wilJ carry out his commission in a thorough and comple te way. Now, Madam Sp eaker, there were certain concerns raised by members opposite that the scope of the inquir y is not broad enough. I take dispute with that.

I think that one, in reading The Evidence Act, cert ainly can see the broad manner in which that act empowers these commi ssioners, once appointed, but it is not only that. * (1 530 ) As the Fir st Minis ter (Mr. Fi lmon) has indica ted on the record on at least three occa sions, if the Chief Justice requires an expansion of his powers, that request wilJ not be rejected by the government here. I think that it is very, very im portant to remember that we cannot antici pate every aspect that his inquiry may take him and so- An Honourable Member: Make it broader. Mr. Toews: The member opposite says make it broader.

The fact is, as I have indi cated, the inquiry is as broad as it needs to be and if he, the commissi oner, after listening to the evidence and looking at various aspects of this evidence, determ ines that a broader scope is required, that can be done. But the member simply suggests that we broaden it so that we can encour age a fishing trip. Now, I do not think that the commissioner wants a fishing trip, nor does this government want a fishing trip.

I think what the government wants-and I hope members opposite do, as well-is that the commiss ioner deal with the issues relevant to the allegations that were brought forward . You know, it is an interes ting situation that we have. We have mem bers opposite standing up every day. They do not put their allegations in writing. They sim ply stand up every other day and make a new allegation. They talk about principles of ju stice or- well, as I remember the practice of law, there are initia ting documents.

It can be an information, it can be an ind ictment, it can be a statement of claim, but the actual allegations are put out in public to specifically say what the allegations are. Now, the members opposite, they do not do that. They simply stand up and one day they say they rely on the expertise of a particular individual; the next day they dispute that individual. One day they say a witness is not trustw orthy. The next day they say that he is, and I have heard them say this about a particular indiv idual, and I do not need to repeat that.

But, in going through Hansard, Madam Speaker, you will see how they have criticiz ed a person who brought allegations forward and then they have indi cated that this individ ual should be one who we should look at the allegations made. So not only do they change allegations from day to day, not only do they disparage witnesses who have not had yet an opportunity to speak in front of the commission er, but they refuse to indic ate what, in fact, their allegations are. Indeed, they ju st stand up and make another allegation and another allegati on.

Sometimes they called it evidence, and I heard the member for Ki ldonan (Mr. Chom iak) today calling cert ain allegations evidence. Now, I did not think that the member for Ki ldonan had any evidence to prov ide to the commi ssio ner, but perhaps if he does have evidence to provide to the com mis sio ner, should he not be providing it to the commissioner rather than making the allegations in this House and passing them off as the truth , when, in fact, he is giving this evidence secondhand? But that is the way they operate, so they say let us have a broad scope of inquiry.

Well, Madam Speaker, the scope of the inquir y is broad, and if there are allegations that need to be addressed which, for one reason or another, go beyond the scope, the commissio ner can make that deter-

June29, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 498 1 mination, based on what? Not flimsy alle gations that have no probative value, · mt, in fact, on the basis of evidence that he, in fact, h lS uncovered. You know, even an information or an indictment is based on reason to be ieve that somebody has reasonable and probable grounds to believe, and that then is taken under oath before a Justice who then swears that information, or the informant or the compla inant swears that ir.formation. In this case, we do not even have that.

Sc they are saying, let us just have a fishing trip, is what members of the opposition are saying. Let us just s near anybody that we can possibly think of. Well, Madam Speaker, c! rtain alle gations have been made. This inquiry respo1ds to those allegations. It grants the powers. It grants the powers to a person who has judicial experience, wh:> has legal experience, who has experience in respect of commissions and boards of inquiries.

Certainly, this is an individual who would be able to determine whether or not the scope should be broadened, because what rr.embers are, in fact, doing is making politically motivated charges, and on that basis, then, asking the commissi' mer to investigate it. Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the better process is to look at the co ·e of the alle gations, ensure that the scope addresses those, which they do, and proceed on the commission on that basis. Then, if the commissioner has any com ems about the scope of that inquiry, there can be an expansion.

Now, members opposite say that, well, they have to come back to the government. Well, they have to come back to the government in any event. What we are doing here today is not determining the scope of this commission. This is done by Lieutenant Governor in Council. There is a spec ific provision that requires notice to be given under Tt e Evidence Act, but it does not determine the scope of the inquiry.

This simply puts the notice to the Home, because all it says is that "nor shall a commission i�.sue during a session of the Legisla ture without its assent." So the question before 1he House is simply should there be a commission ,)r should there not be a commis sion? The govenment is saying that there should be a commission and that we belie ve the appropriate commissioner should not be a judge. It should not be a judicial inquiry, and members opposite know why it should not be a judicial inquiry.

There have been enough public statements by the Chief Justice of Canada as to why it should not be a judicial inquiry. Yet they state, now the government has said there is going to be a judicial inquiry. Well, there is going to be a retired judge who has judicial experience, who has legal experience, and who has inquisitorial experience. So I think that is the appropriate manner in which to proceed. Now, then the members say, well, we need to address the proces s. We need to address how the commissioner does his job. Now, these are the same people who want an independent judicial inquiry.

They do not want an independent judicial inquiry. They want to tell the commissioner exactly what he should and should not do and how he should do it. Well, that is not appropriate for this House. Once we invest that commissioner with these powers, to suggest how he carries out those powers is improper. We invest the commissioner with the powers. How the commissioner decides to carry out those powers is set out in the act. Again, members opposite want to ignore the act. They want to restrict. They want to direct.

They want to ensure that the commissio ner does not have the free and full independence that he requires. When one looks at

Section 88 of The Evidence Act, and this is what members opposite want to restrict, what it says: "The commissioners have the power of summoning any witnesses before them by a subpoena or summons under the hand of any of them, and of requiring those witnesses to give evidence on oath or affirmation, and either orally or in writing, and to produce such documents and things as the commissioners deem requisite to the full investigation ofthe matter into which they are appointed to inquire." * (1 540) So, Madam Speaker, the commissioner, once the Lieutenant Governor in Council signs that Order-in Council, not only is the scope of the inquiry broad enough to address his concerns, if there are any additional concerns that arise on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of frivolous allegations that change from day to day, but on the basis of evidence taken

4982 LEGISL ATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 29, 19 98 under oath, if there are additional powers required or scope required, this government has undertaken that we will enlarge that scope and those powers. That is the way it should be. They say, well, they have to come back to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Well, yes, that is the way the act says. The act requires it. There is another process that I might point out under The Department of Justice Act. I believe that the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry may have been proceeded with under The Department of Justice Act.

I could be mistaken under that process, but, as I recal l, the process, and I do not have the act here before me, that report is provided to the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Justice can consult with the people doing the commission on an ongoing basis. Cle arly that is not the appropriate forum, I would think. Yet that was the process, as I understand it, that the New Democratic Party adopted when they did the AJI. They wanted to ensure that the Minister of Justice could consult with the commissioners on an ongoing basis. That is what they did. An Honourable Member: Did they consult? Mr.

Toews: Well, the member asks did they consult? We will never know, and that is why I say that that is not an appropriate procedure. Well, the fact is that under The Evidence Act, there is no such requirement for the commissi oner to consult with the Attorney General or the Minister of Justice. So what we have here is-[interjection] Well, the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) says where is the AJI report. She says is it holding up her door.

Well, if she does not have a copy, I would be more than happy to get her a copy so she could read it. [interjection] Well, if the member for Wolseley wants it to open up her door, I will buy her a doorstop instead, because I think that is a very despicable thing to do with that report, in any event. So the appropriate process is under The Evidence Act. The Evidence Act guarantees the independence, it grants the powers, and it ensures that the process is an appropriate process.

Now, I have indicated already, Madam Spea ker, if the commissioner requires additional powers, they have to come to the Lieutenant Governor to obtain those powers. That is the way the act is written. That is the way the Legis lature passed it. It did not say come back to the House. It made very specific directions that it comes to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

I think we have made our position very, very clear in that respect as to what our response would be to the commissioner if that eventuality arose, but the process then is that the commissioner will investigate the alle gations and then, in fact, determine on the basis of evidence, not the daily kind of innuendo that is being raised here. Let him do it on evidence because I know the members opposite do not care about the reputations ofthe various people out there.

They have no interest in those reputations, but if there is going to be a process, let us make sure it is fair, let us make sure it gets to the bottom of the matter, and let us ensure that the process is also fair and open to the people outside of this House so that they have the ability to be protected. Now, Madam Speaker, this, in fact, is a- [interjection] You know, the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) says it is a ranting speech. Well, if he wants to go through Hansard and see if I have been rambling or not, that is quite another issue, but I believe I have 40 minutes to speak.

So I think that the issue that needs to be addressed has been addressed publicly here in respect to both the appropriateness of this appointment regrettably it was done after the members of the opposition, I think, very, very unfairly tarnished the reputation of the Chief Elec toral Officer.

We still have the full confidence in the Chief Elec toral Officer, but with due respect to the Chief El ectoral Officer, this process in terms of a retired judge conducting the inquiry was seen to be the most appropriate one, failing the members opposite's refusal to acknowledge why, in fact, the Chief Elec toral Officer would have been the more appropriate person. Having said that, we look at the qualifications of the former Chief Justice. He has the judicial background. He has the legal background. He has the appropriate scope, and he has the powers.

I believe, Madam Speaker, then that he will, in fact, do the job that needs to be done in this particular situation. Again, members opposite would have us specula te as to what may

June 29, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4983 happen or could happen. I do not think it is our role here to speculate what nay happen or what could happen, but, in the ev1 :ntuality that changes are required, The Evidence Ac t in that respect is very, very clear. I think with those few w )rds then, I want to close by saying that I support the amendment to the motion, and I look forward to the comrr ents of other members in the House. Mr. Gary Doer (Leatler of the Opposition): Obviously the Chair has st own a fair degree of latitude with the statements made by the Minis ter of Justice (Mr. Toews).

I will have to respond to a few points, but I want to be specific to the matter before the House first, and that is the amenJment to the resolution that was put forward by the go vernment last Thursday, the amendment before the Cha nber that the Chief Electoral Officer be substituted v. ith a new individual, the honourable Alfred M. Mo min, as commissio ner. We would concur with that amendment. It did not require leave before Ques tion Period. I have to say I resent getting a tattered piece of paper on my desk asking for leave when it i� not required.

I think those kinds of elemen tary Grade 1 games are unnecessa ry in something of this importance. I agreed to give leave last Thursday when the government wanted to waive the notice period for a resolution to be put before the Chamber, and that was the proper decision, because it would have required the 4� -hours notice and leave was theref ore necessary. But :o ask for leave to move an amendment when the amendment can only properly be moved dealing with the resolution I thought was a bit juvenile and very unf or unate when dealing with something of this impor tance. We support the amendment.

It is what we had suggested last Monday. To listen to the Minis ter of Justice (Mr. Toews) now ltcturing us on the powers of commis sioner and lecturiug us on the ability to give testimony under oath and tbe abilities to have the power under subpoena, I mean, where was he last Monday? What kind of Minis ter of Justice do we have who sat there along with his Premier (Mr. Filmon) stonewalling for two days and three da) s before the commission of inquiry was announced llll't Thursday. * (1 55 0) On Monday, the government said it is not necessary. On Tuesday, they said it was not necessary.

On Wednesday, they came forward and said they asked Elections Manitoba to reopen the matter. On Thursday, they then appointed a commission of inquiry to reopen this inqu iry but appointed the head of Elections Manitoba to do so. Mr.

Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair I think the Chief Electoral Officer has done the right thi ng, made the right decision to ask not to be invited by this Legislature or requested by this Legislature to have a second investiga tion with the greater powers of a commission of inquir y under The Evidence Act. 1 think that it is fundamental in our justice system that once you have completed an investigation and adjudi cated the results of that investigation and have concluded that there is nothing to the substance of the allegations that you are no longer able to hear evidence from some of the same people you were responsible for hearing before in a second investigation, because, in essence, you are not only investigating the substance of the new allegations, but you are also investiga ting your own investiga tion.

That does not mean to say that the chief electoral office and the Chief Electoral Officer are unworthy of the support of this Legislature. They have a lot of other responsibilities to perform on behalf of this Legislature, and I think it is impor tant for us. None of us in this Chamber are absolutely perf ect, nor do I expect the office of any institution of government to be perf ect, but if something is conclu ded, I think it behooves us to then have a second review of an independent nature, and this resolution, seven days after we first requested it, does just that. So the Min ister of Justice (Mr.

Toews) lectures this Chamber about the power of subpoena and the oath of evidence, and, of course, those were the same recommendations we had given him just a short period of time ago. The min ister then says that on dealing with the scope-let me first of all deal with his comments about the AJI . I think it is important when the minis ter talks about the process established in the Aboriginal Justice Inqui ry-and he may be correct in terms of the legal

4984 LE GISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 29, 1998 abilities to move back and forth between the govern ment and the commiss ioners of inquir y, but the scope of that inquiry, the individuals that were appointed to that inquir y, the kinds of issues to deal with the Helen Betty Osborne and the J.J. Harper deaths, all of the issues in the narrow scope of the two investigations, plus the broader issues of social and economic justice for aboriginal people and the way in which those matters would be reported, were dealt with in consul tation and partners hip with the First Nations communities in Manitoba.

The two individuals, one Mr. Sinclair and one Mr. Hamilton, the two judges that were appointed to that inquiry, and the powers of that inquir y and the scope of that inquir y and the way in which it would move back and forth in consultation with the government of the day, whether it was the NDP or later the Tories, was all dealt with and all dete rmined in a codeterm ined manner between First Nations. So the Min ister of Justice (Mr.

Toews), who sits there and allows dust to be gathering on the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, gives us a kind of Philadelphia lawyer-Ph iladelphia with a "p," not with an "f' from Paraguay; I do not want to insult the mini ster- gives us a kind of legal definition of some thing that we were dealing with in partner ship with First Nations people and in consultation with them. I want to deal with the second matter that the Minister of Justice talks about, and that is the scope of the inquiry.

The scope of this inquir y is in the resolution on the legislative floor, and the broader the scope of this inquir y as passed by this Legislature, the more predictable the inquir y will be when the former Chief Justice, Justice Monnin, deals with this matter before it. We would rather have the Legislature prescribe a broad scope of inquir y that allows us to deal with the ethical and moral issues before this House and the elections in 1995, rather than narrow violations or alleged vio lations of The Elections Act and The Elections Finances Act. We believe it is important that the scope be broad.

Commentators are already saying on the national news, not the New Democratic Party, that if the Cons ervative Party ran a second campaign with Native Voice candidates in the Interlake, Dauphin and Swan River, it would be one of the largest cases of election fraud, and it would mean that the Tories and the campaign they ran were ethically vio lating the principles of elections and the kind of morality that we should have in a democracy in terms of how we conduct our affairs. We should run elections on ideas. We should run ele ctions on alternatives. We should run elections on thought-out platforms.

We should run elections on the people we bring forward and the enthusiasm to which we bring those forward. We should not run elections on the basis or trickery, deception and having two campaigns, in essence, being run by the same political party. That is the issue that we are dealing with beyond just some of the narrow legal

definitions, and do not believe for a moment that the public does not believe the comments being made by Mr. Barrett and allegations that have been confirmed now, that buttons were purchased, et cetera. It goes way beyond what the Premier (Mr. Fi lmon) has said in this Legislature, that they only gave advice to the Native Voice candidates out of the goodness of their heart. Obviously, the goodness of their hearts means nothing. It was only looking at a way to hold power and to ensure that seats were won or that the Tories would have a better chance of winning seats in the last campaign.

I do not believe for a moment that the public does not understand the strategic advantage of running Native Voice candidates in Interlake, Swan River and Dauphin. Members opposite can fe ign concern for the electoral process, but they are part of a party that we believed and now have had confirmed that has run a second campaign in three areas or three constituencies for their own political advantage. Mr. Acting Speaker, I am shocked that there is not more consterna tion with members opposite. Each and every one of us share one common experience before we get to this Legislature.

We compete in a democratic forum to win the support of our constit uents before we get here. We expect that to be fought in an honest and true way. We do not expect to go through what the member for Interla ke (Mr. C. Evans) feels he went through, and that is as he said most articulately last Monday that: I felt I ran against two campaigns; I watched the pickup trucks go down the street with Tory and Sutherland signs. We knew that money was allegedly being supported for the other campaign, and now we have had the confirmation of buttons being

June 29, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4985 passed and we have the brmer Tory candi date, Mr. Sigurdson, confirming tha • he, in fact, was aware of a systematic campaign to ac 1ieve those results. Why would it not be

S) stematic? You do not just throw darts onto an electoral map to decide where to run in these campaigns. It is quite obvious that the three constituencies the Cons ervatives chose are constituencies they did m ,t hold and where they felt there would be a political advantage to change the incumbency and change, therefore, the electoral results. These are serious, serio' IS allegations. I know you will talk about the narrowr ess of the resolution before us because of the narrowness of the scope, but, Mr. Acting Speaker, these go long beyond the Question Period of the day or the last week's events.

These go to the very heart and soul o ' some individuals that are running that party, and tt e kind of lengths they are willing to go to maintain power in this province. That is why members opposite may think that they could stonew all on Monda� • and stonewall on Tuesday and try to make this an issue of the Elections Manitoba versus the NDP or this con mission versus the NDP or some other allegations versus the NDP.

The real issue here is the ethics, the mo ·ality, the principles of the Tory party, and we think th;lt goes way beyond the laws of The Elections Act, even the amended Elections Act and The Elections Financ

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-4-72
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 4th hansardpdf 72.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f1d863d4f852c82be5df08a9906b7c7401583635

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