Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I rise on a matter of privilege, and, as is the case with our rules, I will be following it with a motion.

Madam Speaker, it is becoming increasingly obvious to members of the Legislature and to all Manitobans that this government has not been telling the truth to the people of Manitoba in regard to the Manitoba Telephone System. On almost a daily basis, we see contradictions. We see misleading statements, and we see misrepresentations not only about the sale itself and the impact of the sale but also in the process that was followed in bringing us to the point where, within a few days, this government can ram through the bill, Bill 67, to sell MTS. It will be sold off; something we have owned since 1908 will be sold off.

Madam Speaker, I want to outline the many misleading statements and misrepresentations that this government has placed on the record that we believe should not only not be allowed to remain on the record but requires some analysis, some sanction and, in particular, I believe are so extreme that we and all the members of this Legislature should be looking very seriously at not proceeding with such a drastic move with the sale of MTS which will happen with the passage of Bill 67.

I want to go back chronologically to the origins of these misrepresentations. The provincial election, we all know that the government said they were not going to be selling MTS. That was repeated in the House in May, 1995, the first Question Period, the Premier at that time--and the Premier can quibble about no plans. We have had witnesses come before the committee, members of the public who have said that the Premier said no, they would not be selling off MTS.

What is interesting is that, according to the government, somehow in August of 1995 they suddenly, for the first time, had some realization that, for example, MTS was now largely competitive, and they have referenced the report of the Crown Corporations Council. It is interesting because on September 26, 1996, supposedly after this discovery--and I think many people would question how realistic that kind of statement is, how anyone can believe that all of a sudden the Premier and his advisers just came to some realization of what had been happening in the phone system since 1992--but on September 26, 1995, in committee, I asked the Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay), September 26--recall that this is one month after the Crown Corporations Council supposedly indicated concern about the status of MTS to the government, and what did the minister say, Madam Speaker? He said that the only person talking about the sale of MTS was the member for Thompson, the only party was the NDP; we have no plans or intentions to privatize MTS. You know, not even the sort of shifting statements we have seen from the Premier, it was categorical. That was September 26. I want to run the calendar ahead, and these are just things that we know before we deal with some of the things, the serious questions that have been raised about what has happened. That was September 26.

Madam Speaker, the same minister this year in committee stated that they approached seven brokerage firms to look at the situation with MTS. He stated that those seven firms were interviewed in September and October of 1995. Did the minister not know about that on September 26? Was he contradicting himself? Was his memory faulty, or was he misleading the legislative committee and the people of Manitoba?

Madam Speaker, we have confirmed that the three brokerage firms that became the so-called MTS financial advisory group were appointed in the middle of November to conduct the contract. That was based on information that we got out of the government in December, on the day in which we, based on our knowledge from the investment committee, announced it in the House, and then the government put out a press release later that day announcing it to the public of Manitoba. We know that that group met in November.

* (1335)

Well, what is interesting is right from the start we in the New Democratic Party did not believe the government's assurances. We had every reason to believe that this government had an existing agenda to privatize MTS. What is interesting is we went throughout Manitoba and talked to Manitobans about the sale. What was also interesting is that the same Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay), who said there were no plans to sell MTS, when confronted in the House in December, started to switch tunes, and when people wrote in about MTS, stated, and I quote from a letter of March 1996, that contrary to some reports, no decisions have been or will be made about the privatization without public discussion.

Madam Speaker, that was sent throughout Manitoba; many people expressed concerns. The announcement was made on May 2 with no public discussion. That statement in itself was misleading, and this is under the minister's signature and was sent to many people throughout Manitoba. I think very serious questions have to be raised about the statement: "no decisions have been or will be made."

Let us go somewhat further because although the Premier had said in December that this supposed MTS financial advisory group was simply to review the matter, it became very clear with the release of the report on April 30, the MTS financial advisory group based on Bay Street in Ontario, that in fact this was the study, the one and only study that the government was going to be using in terms of the privatization. We were told in the House when we asked about the decision-making process that the chronology was essentially, April 30, it was addressed to Treasury Board, probably sent directly to Mr. Jules Benson who most recently has become the unofficial adviser to Mr. Tom Stefanson and the Minister responsible for MTS and the MTS committee.

But on April 30, it went to Treasury Board--you would have the government word to be believed--to cabinet the following day. It was announced to its caucus on the Thursday morning; they were not involved in the decision, it was not taken to the board. The only person it went to from MTS was Mr. Tom Stefanson, and then the government announced on May 2 the sale of MTS. And if there be any doubt about the finality as far as the government was concerned about the sale of MTS, the minister in May and June was already saying that it was too late, that the decision had been made. It did not matter what was going to happen in terms of public input, that decision had been made; MTS would be sold off, perhaps neglecting to mention once again, at that time not one single vote had taken place on MTS in this House. The first vote on MTS took place this week. Well, what is interesting again is that they contradict their own words.

We asked questions in April about an advertising contract involving one Barb Biggar at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars on April 10 of 1996, and what is interesting is that Barb Biggar was brought in. This was part of an advertising contract that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) himself later in the House confirmed was to do with what he called the recapitalization of MTS. So the advertising contract was being let in April. They are trying to say and had said that no decision had been made. It is obvious that the decision had been made. Why would they have let the contract in April if the supposed decision was to be made April 30 and May 1 and then announced on May 2? It defies anybody's credibility on that side to suggest that that decision was really made within a day or two.

I want to take it ahead to the committee this year that took place, the Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay), because the same minister who last year, one year ago, was saying that there were no plans to sell MTS was now saying that decisions started in August of 1995, September of 1995, October of 1995, and somebody said in committee last year that I think the only conclusion we on this side of the House can make on the minister's statements is that he did not tell us and the people of Manitoba the truth in September of 1995, that we were not told the truth in December when we were told by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) that no decisions were made. We were not told the truth in April when we raised questions in the House that no decisions had been made when in fact the advertising contract had been let, and we knew about this as early as April 10, 1996. In fact, while the date on the letter selling off MTS is dated April 30, this two-day decision-making process, it appears very clear that this government had plans to sell MTS far before that.

What is also interesting was in committee yesterday. A member of the public made a presentation, once again catching the minister in his own contradictions. The minister on CBC Radio, on the 18th of this month, stated and quoted from the Crown Corporations Council report, which, by the way, if one reads it in its entirety, gives a fairly good picture of MTS in terms of its financial health, did raise some concerns in terms of risk. He quoted this and tried to reference that this was somehow the reason why in August of 1995 they started this process. They suddenly learned what was happening at MTS and started this process. It was interesting because the presenter pointed out that the document the minister had quoted from was not made a public document, was not a document that existed until April of 1996.

* (1340)

There is a paper trail here that the minister is trying to set up, that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is trying to set up, to disguise one thing, and that is--and I believe that even before the provincial election this was the government's agenda. I will not get into some of the coincidences of one Mr. Bessey, now on his way off to his $400,000 scholarship and book deal with a principal of Faneuil, rather coincidental that his thesis topic was going to be on the costs and benefit, if benefit is possible, sale of MTS. We contract the many other developments within MTS with Faneuil, the cable deal, which we believe were part of stripping the assets of MTS, but I think we can conclude two things from what has happened, and this is why we believe that this is a very serious matter. The first thing we have on the record very clearly is that the government, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the minister who is responsible for MTS have not told the truth. We cannot conclude anything else because their own words even contradict each other. They cannot even get the story straight themselves in terms of the dates, in terms of when the real decisions were made, so we know we were not told the truth, whether it be in the election, whether it be in May of 1995 in this House with the Premier and, most particularly, September 1995 in the committee.

I think that is very serious because it raises very serious questions how we can believe anything that the government has to say about an issue as important as MTS. But the second thing, Madam Speaker, is not only can we not believe the government, we believe that we are now, as members of the Legislature and as people of Manitoba, being asked to, in the case of the people of Manitoba, discuss the issue of MTS because they have not been given the opportunity to have a vote on it.

But we are now dealing with a situation that this government expects this bill to be voted upon, a bill that will sell off a Crown corporation that has served us well since 1908 and that the vast majority of Manitobans feel can serve us well in the future, based on a series of statements that have been placed in the House that are misrepresentations, that are misleading and have no resemblance to the facts.

Given that, we believe the only appropriate thing to do is to have the whole mess of MTS--and you know, Madam Speaker, I think the word "scandal" applies, because I think it is scandalous when we have seen the way this government has dealt with our public assets, when we see now that this hidden agenda, this private agenda, has surfaced. We now even see that the same brokerage firms are now going to be in charge of the sale. They are being called the lead runners, I believe--our assets, the same Bay Street bankers.

If there is one thing I think all Manitobans agree on, it is when you make a major decision such as selling MTS, first of all, the public should be involved. Second of all, the facts should be on the table; the truth should be told. That is why we feel that this sale, the sale of MTS should not proceed any further until the final, the true story is told about what we feel is the scandal in which this government is implying a private agenda, and an agenda that is going to make certain Manitobans--well, certain people perhaps on Bay Street--very wealthy, and it is going to result in the destruction of the publicly owned telephone system we have known.

That is why I move that the numerous misleading statements and misrepresentations of the Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) have made on the sale of MTS be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, a motion of privilege is always a very serious matter before this House. One would hope that it is always used to deal with the matters for which it was intended rather than matters of political debate.

The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has to meet a number of criteria for this to be considered. One, of course, is the timeliness of the motion. The information that the member has brought to the House in support of his argument is information that has been out there and in the public realm for some time. I would certainly hope, when Madam Speaker is reviewing this matter, that she consider this issue of timeliness because we would submit that it has not in any way met certainly that requirement.

But more important is the issue of building a case, of making a prima facie case that the privileges of the members of this House have somehow been breached. I listened very intently to the statements that the member for Thompson quoted. What surprised me in them is they outline, quite frankly, and I challenge his assumption, a process by which any minister, any government, any cabinet has circumstances before it that it must consider, must evaluate, must study, must see options come forward that ultimately lead to a decision.

The comments that surround that, the studying of an issue, whether it be retaining advice to provide argument to government to evaluate particular options in changing circumstances, is part of the process of government. Ministers because they consider and governments because they review and consider matters in the public interest does not mean that they necessarily lead to a decision other than the status quo.

* (1345)

Madam Speaker, the member has made reference to comments about election campaigns and changing circumstances. Many in this province will remember that his party while in government also were faced during their mandate with issues that they did not campaign on, that they did not expect to have to address, that during the course of their mandate circumstances changed, issues developed that they did not anticipate that led them ultimately to having to make decisions and, more importantly, study options, assess them and make decisions and come to this very Legislative Assembly with their proposal to deal with it.

I recall constitutional amendments on language in the period of 1981 to 1986. I do not remember in any way the New Democratic Party campaigning in 1981 on bringing a language amendment to this Legislature. Yet, they did, and they would argue it was because of circumstances and courts' decisions that led them to have to consider options. I am not here to debate the options they chose, but that is just one example of them having to make decisions. They made decisions in their next term of office of 1986 and '88 to significantly raise taxes in this province. They did not campaign on that in the 1986 election. So, Madam Speaker, I do not fault them; every government has to deal with the circumstances that present itself.

The case that the member has made, I would submit, is very much one of describing a process by which ministers, cabinets, governments see issues that come forward and do what is in the public interest, what is their responsibility to do, but to make themselves aware of those issues, to study those issues, to assess them to see what options are available and ultimately make a decision, and what decision do governments make? They make a decision, as in the case with the Manitoba Telephone System, to bring a proposal to this Legislature. The decision to sell this public utility does not rest with the government of Manitoba. It does not rest with the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System (Mr. Findlay). It rests with the Legislative Assembly of this province. It is the Legislative Assembly of this province that created the Manitoba Telephone System. It is the Legislative Assembly of this province, all of its members who have the authority with which to make changes to it.

So what the member has described is exactly what the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province has addressed in answer to questions, what the minister has addressed in answer to questions, a process by which circumstances change, that a government has to consider options and a government if it feels it has to act beyond the status quo brings a proposal to this Legislature.

Now, Madam Speaker, if the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) was right in saying that governments should not do that, what kind of government could function where they could not assess, they could not consider, they could not study options? We would have mindless government. You cannot have that. Ministers and cabinets have to be afforded that ability to study options. If the option chosen by this government was to do nothing but maintain the status quo, would this in fact be an issue? Not at all, but the same process that the minister described would have taken place.

So, Madam Speaker, I would argue very strongly, and I would submit to you, that the member for Thompson has brought no evidence to this House, none whatsoever, that indicates that a member of this administration individually or collectively as a government has done anything to mislead the House--none whatsoever. All the member has brought forward is a list of statements over time that reflect a process of evaluation and consideration and decision making that it is indeed, I would argue, not only the prerogative of government but the responsibility of government to make, and if this government or any other did not go through such processes of decision making it would be a sad day indeed for the people of the province of Manitoba.

So we submit that that test of building and making a prima facie case has not been made in any way and that this motion of privilege should be rejected. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I will take the matter under advisement and report back to the House.

* (1350)