4th-36th Vol. 48B-Oral Questions

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice has contradicted himself, investigated himself and now he has exonerated himself. They used to call this kangaroo court in terms of process.

On May 7, 1998, the minister stated that "the suggestion that the list . . . be expanded . . . was not a suggestion made by me. It was in fact a suggestion made by the chairperson of that committee." That is in Hansard.

Those words are not misunderstood by us, and I would like to ask the Premier: did the Minister of Justice mislead this Chamber and the people of Manitoba when he made that statement in here a week ago today on May 7?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Not to my knowledge, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the minister misled this House last week by saying it was the chairperson of the committee that initiated the discussion on the list. The Law Society has accused the minister of subverting the law. A representative of the Bar Association who is on the minister's own committee has accused this minister of political interference.

After these allegations are made, does the minister investigate the substance of these issues or does he try to clear the air? No. He only initiates lawyers meeting with lawyers after it becomes public that the Chief Judge will make a statement about the misleading statements of the Minister of Justice.

I would like to ask the Premier: why in Manitoba are we not entitled to an independent review so that the Law Society representative, the Bar Association representative, the Chief Judge and all others that are affected by the allegations of interference by this minister can be investigated in an impartial way and can be made public in a clear and transparent way for all Manitobans?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as I have indicated before, the member opposite is basing his allegations on comments made by individuals who did not speak with the Minister of Justice, who were not involved in the meeting between the Minister of Justice and the Chief Judge, and he is basing all of his allegations on that. That can hardly be seen as a factual base upon which to proceed with anything. Those are not the kinds of things, I think, that should generate extensive investigations. They should obviously generate a requirement on the part of the member opposite to prove his allegations, instead of taking statements or comments made by people (a) who were not in the meeting and (b) who did not even talk with the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, in other jurisdictions and in previous precedents in this Legislative Chamber, people have done the honourable thing and had independent reviews. They have not had contradictions by the minister, investigations of the minister and exonerations made by the same individual. That is a fixed process, and we do not accept it on this side of the Chamber.

On September 25, 1996, community members accused this minister of threatening them in the way of protest by threatening them that he would prolong the strike if they continued to protest in front of his home. Two individuals from the community made that allegation. This last week we have had two other members of the community accuse this minister of abusing power by interfering in the process.

Madam Speaker, does the Premier not see there is a pattern here? Twice in the last 18 months his minister has abused power, denied he has abused power, and the Premier has not done anything about it.

Will the Premier please give us a Minister of Justice who has integrity and honesty and can stand the scrutiny, Madam Speaker, of an independent process about the allegations made about him?

* (1340)

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, we have a member opposite who clearly broke the law by revealing names of people who were on the list of the--and he does nothing about it. He is proud of it. He thinks that is a good thing, a good example to set for Manitobans.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The Premier is out of order on two counts. First of all, the reference to the Leader of the Opposition breaking the law, which is a very ironic comment given the fact that the serious charges in this case are being directed to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews). Also, the First Minister was not answering the question, as is required.

So I would like to ask him to withdraw that comment and also to answer the very serious questions we are asking once again, trying to get this First Minister to be accountable for the actions of his Minister of Justice.

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, almost daily the very same kinds of allegations come from that side of the House to this, very often without any intervention on my part, or indeed even yours. This is nothing more than one of those routine points of order being raised so often repeatedly in one Question Period by honourable members opposite.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I will take the matter under advisement to research Hansard and check with the authorities, and bring a ruling back to the Chamber.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Justice. It appears the fix is in. The minister has interfered with the Chief Judge's public responsibility to clear the air by negotiating with her, negotiating the truth.

My question to the minister is: would he now table all the documents that led to the ministerial statement that was made yesterday, and tell us whether there was a term in this backroom deal with the Chief Judge that she cannot speak on this matter? Is there a gag order?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the agreement that we arrived at is the statement that I tabled in the House, and it was my understanding as a result of that, that there would be no further discussions of this matter by the Chief Judge.

Mr. Mackintosh: I want the minister now to just confirm the concluding remarks of his answer. Is he saying that indeed there is a gag order, that a term of the agreement in the negotiations with the Chief Judge is that she not speak on this matter? Is there a gag order?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that that agreement that was tabled and my statement that was tabled in the House is what in fact was decided between the intermediaries. They came and they talked to me. The intention of that statement is to clarify any misunderstanding that might have existed. That was and is the vehicle that the Chief Judge chose to express her comments on this matter.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the statement that I made in the House reflects the consensus of the Chief Judge and I, and I was to make that statement in the House. At no time, in respect of this matter, was the Chief Judge approached directly by me, nor did I speak to her. It was felt very important that any discussions not take place directly between the Chief Judge and I and that it would be done through respected intermediaries, and that was the process that was followed.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.

Is the Minister of Justice today saying that the Chief Justice of the Province of Manitoba is not permitted to speak on this matter pursuant to an agreement that has been reached? The minister can call it anything he wants, but it is clear that there was a negotiated agreement between his representatives and either the Chief Justice directly or her representatives. Is the minister saying that she is not permitted to speak on this issue any longer?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): If the Chief Judge chooses to speak on this matter, I would not stop her.

* (1345)

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, this is unprecedented. An agreement between the Justice minister and the Chief Justice about dealing with an issue is unprecedented. As part of the agreement, is there any implication implied, written or suggested from the minister and/or his representatives to the Chief Justice that she cannot or should not speak on this matter? Is there any representation in that regard?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, it was agreed between the Chief Judge and I, acting through representatives, that this statement would be the vehicle by which the Chief Judge made her views known.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, is the minister saying, therefore, on an issue of contradictory statements between himself, the Chief Justice, representatives of the Law Society and others, and contradictory statements of the minister, his statement issued unilaterally by the minister in this Chamber and negotiations that took place between the minister's representatives and the Chief Justice, that that is the sum total and that is the representation of the Chief Justice of the province of Manitoba with respect to the matters in question? Is that what the minister is saying?

Mr. Toews: I am saying that it was the Chief Judge's choice to proceed in the manner in which we proceeded, and indeed it was my choice as well, and there was an agreement in that respect.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Premier of this province.

The current medical crisis in Brandon relates to the treatment of two existing pediatricians by the Department of Health. Although the government is searching far and wide for at least two or three more pediatricians, this will take many, many months, if not years, and in the meantime Brandon doctors are refusing to deliver babies because of the lack of adequate pediatric services.

The government is refusing to negotiate this matter and causing this problem to drag on while expectant mothers and their families are suffering. Will the Premier now order the Department of Health to get on with the negotiations with the MMA and resolve the problem immediately?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, there are a number of inaccuracies in the preamble that the member for Brandon East has put forward. Firstly, the government is not refusing to negotiate this matter. This matter has been under negotiations as part of the MMA bargaining that has been taking place now for some time. Specific attention has been paid to and focused on the Brandon pediatrics' issue by the government. The member opposite may know that the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) has responded on numerous occasions. Two people from Brandon, the Minister of Health and I have met with both the chair and the CEO of the Brandon Health Authority. Yesterday, the Minister of Health and the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) and I met with the mayor and members of council on the issue. It is not a matter (a) that is unknown to us; (b) that is not being proceeded with.

The member also said that it is the responsibility of the Department of Health to recruit pediatricians. It is the responsibility of the Brandon Health Authority. They are working on that. They have managed to recruit one who will be coming this fall to Brandon and others who are in the process of being recruited. I should point out that Brandon has been down to two pediatricians now for several years, and neither the Brandon Clinic nor the Brandon Hospital proceeded on the recruitment of these presumed needed additional pediatricians for two years--two years.

Now, he, for whatever interests, is attempting to say that it is our responsibility that for two years neither the clinic nor the hospital recruited those pediatricians, Madam Speaker. This is part of a very much larger issue, and it has to do, obviously, with the requirements that are being put forward by the two pediatricians. We would like to resolve the issue, but I do not think it is a matter of just intervening on this particular issue. It is part of the negotiations that are taking place with the MMA, and we are committed to try and resolve it.

* (1350)

Mr. L. Evans: Further to the minister's response and my supplementary question, I want to table a letter in this Legislature dated May 13, from the MMA to the Deputy Minister of Health, in which it is said the MMA has offered to meet Saturday, May 2; Sunday, May 3, but was advised the government wanted to wait until Monday, May 4, to discuss this issue. The association has raised the issue of Brandon pediatrics at every meeting, specifically on May 4, 5, 8, and 11. To date the government has made no offer to settle this issue.

Madam Speaker, it is obvious that this matter is not being negotiated. It is being stalled. My question to the Premier is: why is the government stalling and refusing to negotiate on this very urgent matter?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I know that the member opposite wants to involve himself in union politics, and this is precisely what this is.

Manitoba Health has asked the MMA to prioritize the issues that must be resolved, because we, too, are interested in resolving these issues. They have refused to do that. That way this issue continues to be one of bringing maximum pressure onto the government, and that is not the way in which we are going to resolve this issue. We are looking at it from the long term.

Brandon needs more pediatricians; we are in the process of recruiting pediatricians, but as long as doctors are withdrawing services to try and make their point, the only people they are harming are their patients.

Mr. L. Evans: I am not on the side of the Department of Health or the MMA; I am on the side of the mothers and the babies that they want to bring into this world. That is nonsense. Side of the union, you know better than that.

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Premier--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Brandon East, to pose his question, please.

Mr. L. Evans: Will the Premier, in the interests of resolving the situation, and realizing--he should read the letter and realize that the MMA is prepared to commit necessary resources and time to resolve this dispute. We have offered to meet in Brandon at any time, and they have been waiting for two weeks to negotiate, and they refuse to negotiate.

Madam Speaker, will the Premier agree to go and do a very honourable and appropriate-- take an appropriate and effective measure in this and agree to a third-party binding arbitration process with the MMA, resolve the matter quickly? Get the doctors back to work and let us get on with it.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, if the member opposite just simply wants to support physicians withdrawing services as a means of putting pressure on the government by harming their patients in Brandon, I do not accept that, and he is wrong.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Premier. A few weeks ago there was a story that was in one of our daily newspapers in which it questioned the candidates in the last by-election. The question was: should VLTs be removed from communities that banned them? Tthe Conservative candidate's response was, and I quote: communities should be allowed to decide if they want to ban VLTs.

Both opposition parties inside this Chamber agree with the Tory backbencher. Our question is: does the Premier agree with his Tory backbencher that, in fact, that should be the case?

* (1355)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, firstly, I want to, on behalf of all my colleagues, welcome the newest member of the Legislature here. I know that with her considerable talents and her experience, she is going to make a tremendous contribution to the people of Charleswood, to this government and to the people of Manitoba.

In response to the member for Inkster, I want to say that I certainly will not advise her to follow the lead of the member for Inkster, who, when he was running for the leadership of his party, was in favour of expanding gambling throughout Manitoba. In fact, he wanted to create three casinos, additional casinos. Then, all of a sudden, afterwards, when he lost that leadership, he became an antigambling lobbyist. So I will advise her not to follow his kind of approach to politics where he goes on the one hand and the other hand.

I will listen, as my colleagues will, very carefully to the strongly held views of our new colleague from Charleswood. She will have an opportunity as all members do to persuade their colleagues and to be able to work together to make sure that we have the very best policies to offer the people of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, with a supplementary question.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, given that the new Tory backbencher says that communities should be allowed to decide, will the Premier then allow her to exercise that opinion within caucus and bring it to the floor of the Chamber in the sense of having a free vote in the Manitoba Legislature? If the Premier supports his Tory candidate, he will allow that free vote to take place.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, we have a very open caucus that enjoys--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, that open caucus allows all of our members to be able to bring forward their ideas to express very strongly their views on every issue and to help us to--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: I believe our caucus is much more conducive to differing opinions than the Liberal caucus that kicked the member for Inkster out of its caucus because he had different views.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Premier recognize that what Manitobans and the member for Charleswood's (Mrs. Driedger) constituents want is not necessarily an open caucus, they want an open government? In keeping with an open government, why would the Premier not allow for an open vote on that issue inside this Chamber in respect of the by-election, in respect of the position that your candidate took, Mr. Premier, in the last by-election?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, those are things that may indeed come to pass. Those are the subjects of discussions that will be held. When we have new members, new talent, new ideas in our caucus, they obviously will stimulate additional discussion that may lead to decisions that are made down the road. Certainly I would never preclude that from happening.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): My question is to the First Minister. Madam Speaker, as I understand it, the Middlechurch situation has now been resolved, at least on a temporary basis, but we are in the absurd situation where the regional health authority has offered to fund the extra 15 minutes for the employees only on a temporary basis and not a permanent basis, so the employees might be in a position where they are striking again, again causing a good deal of difficulty and hardship for families and their patients.

Will the Premier commit today that his government will deal with this absurdity of the 15-minute laying off of time for employees, reinstate it on a permanent basis across the province, which is what their commitment was when they removed it in the first place? It was tough times then; if it is times now that we can get raises as MLAs, surely these people deserve these additional 15 minutes. Will the Premier commit to that?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik).

* (1400)

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, my supplementary: does the Premier not recognize, in light of the fact that we have in Winnipeg shortages in hospitals again, we have people lying in the hallways, and their excuses about flus and everything else goes awry--my question to the Premier: does he not realize that 15 minutes per employee amounts to two and a half hours of patient time per week per employee, something that is desperately needed in our institutions? Will he not today commit that that time will be reinstated so employees and caregivers can devote the time and energy necessary to help the patients of Manitoba?

Mr. Filmon: I know that those are all issues that the Minister of Health has under discussion with the Winnipeg Health Authority, and certainly that is a matter that I know he will want to respond to when he returns to this House.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): My questions are for the Minister of Energy and Mines. The two recent announcements of ore discoveries at Snow Lake and Flin Flon are positive news for northern Manitoba. In light of the fact that these discoveries occurred at existing known sites, will the minister now agree to increase exploration in the Lynn Lake-Leaf Rapids region, because presently only one-half of 1 percent of the geological survey branch budget is being spent there, and the Leaf Rapids Chamber of Commerce feels that 30 percent of mining exploration grants should focus on that region?

Hon. David Newman (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, the question is timely, given it is National Mining Week in Canada, but the approach that is taken by the member for Flin Flon unfortunately does not pay heed to the fact that that is one of the most-explored, best-known areas in this province. The information which is widely available to companies like Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting and Inco--and it was Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting that did the work there--is beyond our knowledge because much of that is still confidential.

But the capacity to be able to do exploration in the green field areas of the province is where we are investing our energies at the moment, hopefully to get big finds or small finds that develop into mines. That is done through the MEAP program, and that is well supported by this provincial government.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, since the Mining Reserve Fund comes from mining taxes of mining operations based almost exclusively in northern Manitoba, and the fund is for the benefit of mining communities facing problems, would the minister agree that the fund itself should be located in a northern community such as Lynn Lake?

Hon. David Newman (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, I think less concern about where the fund is located, more concern about where the funds are spent, and that is where we direct our attention. As the honourable member for Flin Flon well knows, and we discussed it at Estimates at some length, what we are doing is responding to applications from communities that have creative ideas as to what to do to redress the consequences of a mine suspension or closing, and we are prepared to deal proactively in preventative ways to make sure that the communities are well served if and when there is a diminishing service and jobs provided by a local mine.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Mines and Northern Affairs. The need for respect and partnership with First Nations is paramount. The minister calls the recent actions by Cross Lake as rash and counterproductive to the reputation of the leaders and people of Cross Lake.

Will the minister admit that by allowing two exploration companies to work in the Cross Lake resource management area and actually funding one of those companies to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars without any consultation or notification to the band is counterproductive to this government's reputation and to his own reputation as Minister of Mines and Northern Affairs?

Hon. David Newman (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, to the extent that privately owned diamond explorers in that area and other explorationists in that area are not dealing in appropriate ways expressing courtesy and understanding the values and traditions of the aboriginal people who are neighbours to their exploration, I think that they would be performing deficiently. We have discussed again at length in Estimates the expectations we have for explorationists in the province of Manitoba.

With respect to Cross Lake and the standards being exhibited by them in relation to the issue of the barricade at Cross Lake, the fact is, to my great delight, I have been informed today that the Cross Lake band has reconsidered their position. The equipment of Hydro has now been removed with their co-operation and support and with the support of the neighbouring communities. So a very positive resolve has been achieved.

Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, will the minister ensure now--and Cross Lake has again gone out of its way to meet the government and try and resolve issues--that this government will not hand out provincial grants to those exploration companies that have intentions to do that work behind the backs of First Nations on their lands? Will he ensure that government money will not go to those companies?

Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, if there are indeed specifics of problems in terms of the relationship between a private company, which has received MEAP funding, in relation to a neighbouring community, whether it is aboriginal or municipal or whatever, I would be very interested in hearing the details about that and the names of the companies involved. We will use our good offices to promote the kinds of relationships between explorationists and the neighbouring communities which we are advocating through our aboriginal mining initiative and which we advocate in terms of all the explorationists in the province of Manitoba in relation to Manitoba citizens.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): To the Minister of Justice in follow-up to earlier answers by the minister. Once the minister got wind that the Chief Judge had planned to go public as early as Monday about what the minister did with the nominating committee's report, the minister hired a lawyer, and the minister now, this afternoon, has admitted that he was able to negotiate a gag on the Chief Judge.

My question to the minister is this--[interjection] Well, that is what was said. My question to the minister: was it not indeed his intention, his whole objective, the whole point of hiring a lawyer to approach the Chief Judge to get a gag order, to shut her down to ensure that she did not make public statements on this very serious matter?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, let me say this, both in respect of this question and any other similar question put to me today. If the member is asking whether there are any legal consequences flowing from the statement made by me on May 13, if the Chief Judge decides to make any further statements or comments, the answer is no. It was agreed between us that the statement was to be the appropriate vehicle by which both the Chief Judge and I would make our views known on the issue raised in the statement. So, if the member has any doubt about that, the Chief Judge, as I have indicated earlier in this Question Period, has the right to make further statements or comments.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Well, would the minister--who has now indeed confirmed that it was their understanding that she would not make any further statements, and that is clear from what he has just said--now advise this House what else formed the agreement between the minister and the Chief Judge that does not appear in the ministerial statement of yesterday? What else was agreed to? What were the other terms of negotiation?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I made the statement in the House on May 13, 1998. It specifically referenced the May 11 Question Period. That Question Period on May 11 specifically raised the questions asked of me on May 7.

An Honourable Member: Contradictions.

* (1410)

Mr. Toews: The member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) indicates that they are contradictions. I disagree. There were a number of statements or questions that were asked of me. In respect of those questions, which are very different questions on very different points, I provided an answer on each question.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, the minister avoided my question. I asked: what else was agreed to with the Chief Judge that is not in the ministerial statement? I want to know and Manitobans have to know what, for example, was the role of his earlier threat hanging over the Chief Judge to remove her from the nominating committee and to have judge appointments removed. What other threats were made? What other negotiating tactics did this minister use? What were the instructions to his lawyer when he went to the Chief Judge?

Mr. Toews: To my knowledge, there were no threats made.

The minister has gone to the Chief Judge and interfered with her public responsibility to clear the air. He directly interfered. I ask this minister: is he going to continue with his ludicrous statement that because he hired a lawyer there was no direct interference? Does he not understand that, given his former career, it makes no difference if he went to the Chief Judge or his lawyer went to the Chief Judge? He directly interfered with her ability to perform her public responsibilities.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, no one compelled the Chief Judge to attend any meeting or to enter into any discussions. This process was adopted out of an abundance of caution when it became apparent to me that there may well be some misunderstanding, and that misunderstanding needed to be clarified.

Madam Speaker, the allegations made here by the member for St. Johns are not accurate.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My supplementary question to the minister: will he not admit that the sole purpose of him hiring a lawyer to go to the Chief Judge was to obtain a gag order and prevent her from talking on this very serious matter? That was the purpose. Will he not admit that now?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): No, Madam Speaker, that is not correct. I have a broad responsibility to ensure that there is the administration of justice in the province. The Chief Judge, in her capacity as judge, has certain responsibilities, and in her capacity as the committee chair of this specific legislated chair has certain responsibilities. It was a view to understanding our relationship in respect of that particular duty that she was carrying out as the chair of that committee.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.