* (1700)
Madam Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private members' hour.
"WHEREAS in the six months prior to the 1995 provincial general election the Provincial Government spent hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on partisan advertising of Provincial Government programs in Manitoba newspapers and on radio and television stations around the Province; and
"WHEREAS in 1993 the then Provincial Auditor called some of the Provincial Government's ads "questionable" and stated that the Government should implement guidelines for government advertising; and
"WHEREAS on June 3, 1994 the Minister of Finance indicated that, "I have staff working on this issue, and we will come forward with a position on the whole issue of appropriate guidelines and so on. So we are undertaking it. We take it very seriously."; and
"WHEREAS despite repeated promises before, during and after the election the Minister of Finance has still not brought forward any standards or guidelines and refuses to act on his previous commitments; and
"WHEREAS thousands of dollars continue to be spent on questionable advertising contracts many of which have been awarded to former staff of the Premier's office; and
"WHEREAS the Provincial Government wasted over $400,000 on advertising promoting the privatization of the Manitoba Telephone System prior to the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System and this advertising was clearly partisan and part of a pattern; and
"WHEREAS the Provincial Government is continuing this policy of using advertising for partisan purposes.
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Premier consider following the advice of the Provincial Auditor in this matter and 'consider developing more explicit guidelines in this area, specifically defining the extent to which the political element is acceptable in ads paid with tax dollars'; and
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly request that the Premier order the cancellation of all non-essential advertising campaigns until such guidelines are publicly released."
Motion presented.
Mr. Maloway: This government has a lot of nerve. You know, back on June 3, 1994, the Minister of Finance indicated that he had staff working on this issue, that is the issue of establishing guidelines, and will come forward with a position on the whole issue of appropriate guidelines.
Now, this was 1994. Since then, we have gone through one election cycle, and we are almost on the eve of the second cycle, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) has not produced on this promise. This is yet another broken promise from a member of this government. You know, if I had a crystal ball, I would say that good times are ahead for Barbara Biggar in the next 12 months. I think I could safely stand here today and predict that Barbara Biggar and other advertising firms will be looking forward to record amounts of business at the end of this year and the beginning of next year thanks to this government as it comes up with ideas to promote itself, promote government programs, to try to increase its profile and support coming into the election expected next year.
Now, certainly that is a total misappropriation and misexpense of public money. You know, the ads that this government runs to support its political goals should, in fact, be billed to the Conservative Party of Manitoba. I read with interest the member for Brandon West's (Mr. McCrae) comments a few months ago on this issue. He said, well, you know, the other provinces do this as well; B.C. does it; Ontario does it; all these other provinces do it.
But that does not make it right. Why do we have to follow what the other provinces do? If they are wrong, if it is a wrong idea, they should be setting a precedent here. The Provincial Auditor has stepped in and suggested that they come up with guidelines. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) said he would come up with guidelines, and this is four years ago. Where are the guidelines?
They have no intention, Madam Speaker. I would have felt better about the issue had the minister simply told the Provincial Auditor to mind his own business, that this government had no intention of coming up with guidelines and simply done it that way, but they led the Provincial Auditor on by saying they would develop--and led this House on, too, by the way--said that they would come up with guidelines, when they have no intention of doing it.
Now we look at some of the advertising campaigns that they put on over the years and one of them said, well, was it successful? You know, I am not so sure that some of these advertising campaigns are all that successful. I remember the group for good government. The member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) is certainly familiar with that illustrious and unsuccessful group from the 1970s. This group for good government co-ordinated anti-NDP efforts in a number of constituencies and ran parallel advertising campaigns, scare campaigns, spent an awful lot of money, and at the end of the day they were spectacularly unsuccessful in what they were doing.
We know that there are other parallel campaigns in elections that organizations run, spend tremendous amounts of money supporting a certain cause, whether it is the Conservative Party or another party, and those efforts have not necessarily produced terrific results. So there certainly, if you dissect each advertising campaign that is put together for any particular purpose, I think one could perhaps find as many campaigns that did not work as did. But that is not going to deter these people. That is not going to deter these people from trying this again, basically misappropriating public money for use for their political purposes in the election campaign. I mean, that is what it is. That is what it is.
The Conservative Party should get a bill for each and every ad that they ran on the privatization of the telephone system, that they ran in a number of these advertising campaigns that were nothing more than campaign efforts to help their political fortunes. You know, the public, they feel they have fooled the public once, twice on this issue, and they think that the public will be fooled again. They may find that does not work that way because money, while people suggest that money buys elections, the point is that there is a certain level at which money is basically wasted.
* (1710)
The member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) may be familiar with the United States presidential candidate who spent $26 million or something a few campaigns ago and only got three or four votes. I am trying to remember who that was. [interjection] No, no, it was another--this was a presidential race where the nominee spent a tremendous amount of money. [interjection] That is right. So the saturation advertising that these people opposite are going to be launching later on this year and all through next year may in fact backfire on them, because the public are not that ill informed, the public are not that stupid that they cannot figure out that these people are trying to buy their votes with their own money.
They know that this is public money. If they do not, we are certainly going to tell them that this is public money that is being spent to enhance the fortunes of the Tory Party, and people do get cynical after a certain point about strategies that are developed by this party and others who use this tactic. I do not think it does them a lot of good. So I do not see why they, or what lack of interest they would have in coming forward with some guidelines, producing these guidelines that they promised to produce way back in 1994 and try as best they can to stick to these guidelines to at least give the appearance that they are trying to disseminate government information to the public and that they are not overtly trying to buy people's votes with their own money.
I think if they did that--I am trying to give them some good advice here, you know--I think the public would be more lenient with them. The public would understand that certain government programs need to be communicated, and they would understand that certain ads are providing information to the public.
But this is not what they are going to do. They are going to look at what Barb Biggar has to say, not what the people in the department have to say. They are going to look at what Barb Biggar has to say and the other advertising gurus, and they are going to tie that in to their polling campaign and their focus groups, and we are going to see, not information ads, but we are going to see just blatant political ads, you know, nice blue backgrounds. The canoe is in for repair now, I understand, a lot of repairs needed on the canoe. It has had a long trip. There are a few holes in the canoe that need to be plugged, and that is why we are not seeing an election this year. Things have to be put off for another year. When the canoe gets fixed, we are going to be under this barrage of political advertising, and, you know, when you think of the money they spent and the efforts they spent on government advertising over the last few elections, what has it produced for them? Marginally more seats than we have over here.
We produce all these seats over here on this side of the House with not one cent of government advertising. We do not have the benefit of that. We do not have this well-oiled machine that the Tories have, and yet we still keep getting elected. So, you know, at the end of the day, we are not too happy about what this government has done in the past in this area and what we think it will be doing again in this area, but there is nothing much we can do about it, other than make sure this government is not around after the next election, and we will do our best in that area.
But I am going to be very interested to see what the Conservative response is this time around, because last time around the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) gave the Conservative response, and I detected no remorse in his speech. In fact, all I gathered there was just the fact that other parties do it, other jurisdictions do it, so we are going to keep doing it. We are not going to change our ways. [interjection] Well, the member thinks he is going to keep getting elected.
I am not sure what the advertising campaign, the focus of it will be in the coming year, but I would imagine it will be pretty heavy on the Pan Am Games and the surplus budget and sort of the feel-good, fuzzy image that they want to promote in the summer of 1999 to try to fool people into believing that all is well with the province, and if people only go to sleep for the summer and wake up September 10, or whatever the date is, and vote Tory one more time, that all will be well. I guess it is our job to get that message out, that that is, in fact, what they are trying to do.
I also wanted to deal with the area of lottery advertising because that is certainly a big area that I have been interested in over the last few years. I know that it is almost impossible to promote the idea in the province that we should get rid of lotteries, certainly given the fact that the government that I was involved with for a number of years had a lot to do with setting up the gambling system, certainly not to the extent that it is right now because this government here has brought it light years further down the road to the point where we have VLTs on every corner.
But I would think that one of the things that we should be looking at certainly is the elimination of all advertising relating to lotteries. I fail to see why we have to spend taxpayers' money advertising things like lotteries. I think if people want to go out and buy lottery tickets, they can certainly find out where to buy them. There are certainly enough of them around. Why we have to spend millions of dollars and make Barb Biggar richer and other advertising agencies richer to promote lotteries is beyond me, and I really think that this government should come to its senses and make some initiative.
I mentioned before that the former Leader of the Liberal Party, the newly minted senator formerly from River Heights, one of the few ideas I did agree with her on was the fact that she wanted to either restrict or eliminate lottery advertising in this province. I think it was a good idea and should have been picked up on by the government, particularly during the minority government period because that was the time to effect something like this.
So I really do think that we have to work together to try to curb basically wasteful and counterproductive advertising such as the lottery-type advertising. There is probably some other types of advertising that are just totally unnecessary and perhaps even contrary to the public interest that the government should not philosophically be promoting.
But I think on this side of the House we are resigned to the fact that we are going to have to deal with a barrage of this feel-good advertising stuff over the next 12 months, and I guess we are ready for it, but we wish--[interjection] Well, you know, we wish the government would come to its senses and do what it promised. I mean, here we have a Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) who has essentially not kept his word. He promised on June 3, 1994, in response to the Provincial Auditor--I mean, it is not people in the NDP who are opposing this. We have the Provincial Auditor of the Province of Manitoba saying this is wrong; do something about it; cut it out, and we have the Minister of Finance saying, you are right; we have staff working on it; we are going to come forward with a position.
This is a year before the last election, and meanwhile they were churning out ads one after the other while he was making this promise, and four years later, here we are again.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): The honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) brings this resolution forward, and it is really curious how he--[interjection] Well, he says that this government has a lot of nerve, Madam Speaker, as far as our approach to this resolution and the things that we are doing. My advice would have been to him that maybe if he had spent half an hour in the washroom before he came in and made this resolution and his speech, he would have probably been far better off.
The thing that I think we really have to examine here, Madam Speaker, are the issues that this government has addressed. We only have to go back to the MTS debate--
* (1720)
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, generally speaking, when I am inside the Chamber, I listen very closely and try to get a good understanding of what exactly has been said. The member lost me when he talked about the washroom and 30 minutes and then something would be happening with this resolution. I am wondering if he could maybe elaborate on that point, and my apologies if I--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster does not have a point of order.
Mr. McAlpine: I do want to address this issue now that I have the member's attention. If you remember the MTS debate--and they criticized this government for not being informative and letting people know and that we did not travel around the province and all those things, and now in the resolution, Madam Speaker, what do they say? They criticize the government for spending $400,000 on advertising promoting the privatization of the Manitoba Telephone System.
These are things that this opposition member, and I guess he has the support of his colleagues across the way, and I hope they are going to speak on this and defend the honourable member's statements that he is making here, because I think that then we can really understand what they are thinking over there if we can really get some clear understanding. When they make these kinds of statements, it is really confusing. So I would hope that they would clarify some of these things.
He goes into the final RESOLVED here: "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly request that the Premier order the cancellation of all non-essential advertising campaigns until such guidelines are publicly released." I would like to add something to that, or what doom day of darkness that the NDP form government, because you know what they would do if they were in government? They would not want anything to do with this because, when I did the research on this, and very brief research, they did everything but.
The government is committed to making its policies and practices as transparent as possible. We have demonstrated that as a government. Under the tenure of this government, information has never been more accessible as it is today. Manitoba's new Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act comes into effect this May 4, and it is designed to increase access to a wider range of public institutions.
As well, the new act establishes specific guidelines to protect the privacy of third-party individuals when access is being considered. Health care facilities, education facilities, municipal governments will fall under provincial access laws for the first time but not to be subject to the act until a later date. The provincial Ombudsman has been given the authority to go to court on behalf of the applicants and conduct audits on access or privacy issues through the new legislation.
I do not know what the honourable member is talking about in his resolution. There is no sense there at all.
One of the first orders of the government's business was to proclaim The Freedom of Information Act in 1988. [interjection] Well, he says it is the wrong resolution. Maybe it is a matter of interpretation, the way I see it. At this point I have the floor, so I hope the honourable member would listen and maybe he will hear something that will maybe put him on the right track.
With the information, I try to find some phrases or sayings that maybe could best describe the honourable member's resolution in terms of what we are talking about here. I cannot say that this opposition is like a ship without a rudder. They are more like a bunch of dinghies full of loose air. They are certainly not demonstrating to me that there is any accuracy in their statements in this resolution.
My advice to them is that people in glass houses should not throw stones, because all we have to do is go back into the '80s during the Howard Pawley, I mean, you do not have to go back a long way. The honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) says that he wished that I could not remember that far back, but this is in history, it is documented. That is the other thing.
They do not seem to think that we have access to this information. It is like the bird who has the nest. I mean, what do you do? They have done that and they do it all the time, and that is the only thing that I can say. Another saying that I think we could probably attribute to their--that maybe describes the honourable members, to be like a parakeet that says what he knows but does not know what he says. That certainly is appropriate for the honourable member's resolution here.
Madam Speaker, let us just look at some of the--in 1983 the NDP created a $315,000 Communications Branch within Maureen Hemphill's Education department, and I think it was 1985 or somewhere in that area, or '84, Limestone as an example, perhaps one of the best examples of the NDP's misuse of public funds was the Limestone advertising campaign. Several hundred thousands of dollars were spent on an ad campaign for that project, and then they criticize, in this resolution, that we are out there informing the people.
All the things that we have done, the people in Manitoba want to know what this government is doing, and I think that is the responsibility of governments, but not the abuse that the honourable members did in the 1980s. That was full abuse of their rights as members and serving the people of Manitoba as a government.
The honourable Minister of Energy back in 1985 actually was quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press. Mr. Wilson Parasiuk confirmed that $100,000 had been paid to the Montreal-based Dunsky [phonetic] Advertising Limited to develop an overall approach to getting the information out, as well as the government recently passed a Special Warrant that added $590,000 to the government advertising budget, raising it to $2.9 million. That was in the Winnipeg Free Press on January 31, 1985. In 1985 the NDP employed 36 information specialists, which was 13 more than were on the payroll prior to the previous government under Sterling Lyon. There was a growth of 56 percent. That was in the Winnipeg Free Press, February 6, 1985.
* (1730)
In early 1988 the NDP had 116 communicators on the public payroll, and the previous government administration had only 23. That is almost 100 more administrators to do their advertising campaigns and to communicate to the people what good things the NDP were doing. Mr. Walding saw the light. He made the difference, and that is why we are here today. It is because of that unfair spending on the part of those members over there.
Madam Speaker, I think it is really too bad that the honourable member has brought this resolution forward. No, maybe it is not that bad, because at least now Manitobans can be reminded of those years, in 1985 when they did squander the money of the people of Manitoba. Although I was not here during that time, I certainly lived through their tenure in government, and I certainly felt the pain as a business person in trying to serve my clients and to try to make a living through some pretty hard and difficult times. It was government that was like this, the irrational spending on their own campaigns and being re-elected that I take issue with and take exception to, and the honourable member who brought this resolution, I think, should be reminded of that. It is shameful that here is a person who was here in that time in serving with that government, and I think he has to be reminded and he has to do some soul searching on this whole issue.
I would hope that the honourable member would have given maybe a little more serious thought when he brought this resolution in in terms of what he was going to say. It is easy to criticize people who are serving in the interests of the people of Manitoba. I dare say that with the information that we have and the legislation that has been brought in, we certainly are taking a position that all Manitobans benefit and know what we are doing. I think that is one of the things that I prided myself in as far as the constituency of Sturgeon Creek and making drops to mail boxes and things like that. I cannot afford the advertising with my constituency allowance to get a lot of the messages out, so I am grateful that the government has the budget and the foresight to ensure that information does get out to Manitobans so that they know what we are doing as a government.
So, Madam Speaker, and as my time has run out, I would like to close on this note that the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) and his colleagues should really sit back and take stock of really what this resolution is saying. I would offer to the honourable member for Elmwood that unfortunately or whatever, I certainly am not going to be one that is going to support this resolution. I think that the honourable member for Elmwood has some real soul-searching to do on this. Thank you.
Mr. Lamoureux: I would suggest that the speaker before me has quite a bit of thinking that needs to happen. If you take a look at the last two BE IT RESOLVEDs, the core of the resolution, the first one is saying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request the Premier (Mr. Filmon) consider following the advice of the Provincial Auditor.
Madam Speaker, I do not think that is too much to ask for when it is suggesting that in this matter and consider developing explicit guidelines in this area specifically defining the extent to which political element is acceptable in ads paid with tax dollars. I do not see anything unreasonable about that.
The second BE IT RESOLVED that this Assembly request the Premier order the cancellation of all nonessential advertising campaigns until such guidelines are publicly released, well, Madam Speaker, if this was to pass, that might then put more pressure on the government to actually materialize on some sort of guidelines.
I look at advertising in a couple of ways. One is that it can be a mechanism in which we influence public opinion. That can be done in order to protect the government's popularity within polls. A good example of that would be gambling. I can recall the billboard campaigns, TV campaigns, for example, on gaming where it would say these gaming dollars are going to be going towards all these wonderful causes in order to try to influence public opinion when you have others that are trying to say, well, look, there is a social cost to the type of gaming policy that the government has adopted.
Well, Madam Speaker, what you are trying really to do is not necessarily to inform Manitobans in some areas, what you are trying to do is that you are trying to influence their opinions on a policy that the government actually has.
I can recall, because the member wanted specific examples, when the government was in a lot of hot water with respect to health care and some of the things that were happening in health care, whether it was the regionalized boards, whether it was the home care services, this wonderful eight-page, I believe, glossy document with the then minister of Health went out to all Manitobans talking about how wonderful things are within our health care area.
Well, Madam Speaker, there is a need to provide information. I do not question that, and government does have a role in that, but that is, in essence, where I would suggest that there is the need to develop those guidelines. I do not understand how a member of whatever side of the Chamber would oppose the need to have some sort of basic guidelines, so that the line is a little more decisive, that the gray area is not quite as wide. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever in supporting the two BE IT RESOLVEDs.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): The Manitoba government is spending too much on public relations people to sell its programs. The ribbons and bows you put on it are more important than the actual package. The government has its image-builders squirrelled away under at least three civil service job descriptions: media specialists, program analysts and administrative officers.
As I read those comments, Madam Speaker, and listening to the member opposite put his comments on the record in regard to his resolution, it struck me that those same words, or the words that I have just read into the record, were spoken by then MGEA leader Gary Doer in respect to the Pawley government, so as I sit here and listen to the comments made by the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), I almost have a feeling of déjà vu, only the question I might ask is when it was good for them, it was okay, and when it is someone else in government, then it is not all right.
I say that is a shameful thing to say, for a member from Elmwood to bring forward in a resolution when a government such as the one that is currently present in Manitoba has brought forward so many positive, forward-thinking policies that the public can see, can debate, can understand, and can base their opinions and their judgments for the province of Manitoba based on the information that is brought forward.
It absolutely amazes me how the members opposite can be so hypocritical of things that they used to do on a constant and daily basis and stand in this House and put on their righteous hats and criticize a government for the way they are acting or performing on behalf of the people of Manitoba. It is amazing.
I look back at the record, and in early 1988 the NDP had 116 communicators on the public payroll as opposed to 23 by the previous Conservative administration, which they so critically challenged and held out as a demonstration of government's influencing the media. I say that is shameful. When I read some of the articles that were written at the time--and, again, I would say all the members opposite have to look in the mirror and question themselves and the party that they belong to.
One of the major promises that Howard Pawley made to Manitobans was that this would be an open government, and I think at that time they hired enough people to try and present that open-thinking government, but, unfortunately, it did not serve them as well as they would like.
* (1740)
As I read these news clippings, something that struck me was that they actually had a deputy minister of communications. That surprises me when they are bringing forward a resolution that talks about a government that through sensible, proper communications to the people so that they can understand what governments are doing and where governments are headed and what policies are being implemented--I say shame to the members opposite that they can stand up and be critical today. I think it is absolutely disgraceful.
The articles that I have had a chance to go through lists several of the incidents where the NDP in time of government brought forward people or persons and disguised them, I guess, as many things, but were well known as the government flacks, the proponents of information. In one of the articles that I read, what they were talking about was the fact that the communicators, when the government changed in 1988, the province's proposed communications budget was going up to $13.2 million. Absolutely unbelievable that they can stand there and be so righteous in their statements saying that this government is making a mistake or is doing something wrong in some of the advertising that they are doing. It is just absolutely disgraceful that they can bring forward that kind of a resolution.
The other comments that I have read as I looked through the articles were they were trying to enhance their position. They hired a senior bureaucrat with a pay of more than $50,000 a year to run its public relations drive. Again, the president of the MGEA at that time claimed that the number of government media specialists had grown to 36 under the New Democrats, who once criticized the Tory government's complement as being too rich.
It is very interesting that they would stand up today and in their presentation talk about all the things that government does today. I think of all the positive things that are going on out there. In fact, I know the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) took to using, I believe, some of her advertising funding to explain to people how to fill out and how to file and claim for welfare. I would question whether that is a proper use too, but, again, I guess I will stick closer to the resolution that is on hand.
One of the articles or WHEREASes that the member brings forward is in regard to the advertising of MTS. It pales in comparison to the Limestone project that was advertised. Being a novice at this and maybe not fully understanding some of the numbers, I am led to believe that the NDP government of the day confirmed that they had paid $100,000 to a Montreal-based--I guess that, if we are going to take criticism, we will take it working with a local Manitoba company as opposed to someone from out of town. The idea was to develop an overall approach to getting the information out. It was not a matter of what they were doing or what they were attempting to do. It was the attempt to get the message out, and, as well, it was suggested in this press release that they had spent an additional $590,000, raising it to $2.9 million at that time, under a Special Warrant. Can you imagine, a government taking out a Special Warrant just to bring forward some of their own promotions and promote their own ideas?
Then I look at this resolution, and I shudder to think what must have been going on at that particular time. Unbelievable.
The other comments that I read as I go through some of the comments that were made by people at that time--I think it is good to remind people and often, as history teaches us a lesson, it would certainly come back to remind people.
It says here from the Brandon Sun: The government of Premier Howard Pawley has raised the bureaucracy of communicating with the public to a separate, high-powered agency. The mere fact this reorganization has taken place indicates that this government believes public relations can somehow mask the fallout from cutbacks in other areas of government expenditures.
I do not have the quote in front of me, but I do know that the then chairman or president of the MGEA was quoted as saying, and I will not say he was quoted, but I will say he referenced the story and said that it was a shame that the government would increase their budget for advertising by $7 million while they were cutting back civil service jobs.
I would suggest that he probably was right in doing so. It is just the fact that it seems a little bit ironic and perhaps hypocritical that he would have his party bring forward that resolution today.
It goes on to state in the Brandon Sun article, and I think probably the editor of this column probably saw the future, because he states here: The problem with the government preoccupied with public relations--referring to the NDP of the time--is that it will end up spending too much of its time and resources trying to counter its critics rather than acting and letting the chips fall where they may.
I would say that would be exactly what this government is doing is we are moving ahead, we are making decisions, we are acting rather than letting our press people and letting our public relations run the show which would suggest by the history that at this particular time had happened. It is always interesting, and I have learned very quickly that part of this business is the history and the past, and things you say today may come back and kick you tomorrow. I would suggest today that the resolution brought forward by the NDP party today is just exactly that. It is a suggestion that when it was good for them it was good, and when it does not suit them anymore, they would oppose it. So I think that is what this resolution speaks generally to.
I think that also, in talking about communications and some of the things that are suggested here that we do not get our message out, people are listening, people are understanding where the province of Manitoba is going and some of the many positive things that are being done in the province, I think that is part of the nature of government and should be. I do not think that we want to hide the fact of the successes that the province is enjoying. It is something that you should share with the people.
Again, when I look at some of the releases that I have had a chance to review, it certainly did not seem that the intent was to advise the public, the people of Manitoba, of some of the programs and some of the things that the government of Manitoba were doing but merely to promote the government and the members of the government itself at a time when they probably needed the propping up.
Some of the other things that I have had an opportunity to read in regard to some of the governments of the day, back in 1985, I believe it was. It was also stated in the article--and I actually do not have the date--oh, March 6 of 1998, the government of the day had proposed an increase of $13.2 million in their budget for the following--
An Honourable Member: What do you think, Merv?
Mr. Tweed: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) asks me what I think. I think it is shameful that you can sit there, and I think it is wrong for you to challenge this government on many of the communications that they have put out there that have advised people of the great things that are happening in the province and the good things that the government is doing. If it is good, I think people need to know and have a right to know and that governments should and will always be involved in that type. But what I see based on the history is the fact that it was not promoting government policy, it was promoting the individuals within government. I think that is very clear and very obvious in the statements that I put on the record today and some of the things that people have said at this particular time.
With that, Madam Speaker, I think I am not interested in putting any more comments on the record than that, and I thank you for the time.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I want to speak in support of the very excellent resolution brought in by the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). I say to, particularly, the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), you know, he could have taken a very independent approach, the high road on this. I know that the spinners on that side, as our Leader points out, probably spent many hours writing the notes, the very detailed notes I am sure, for that speech.
But, you know, government members, particularly members who are not part of cabinet, do have a luxury, and that is they do not have to follow along with what this core group that is running that government, that very small, inner group, that is deciding. You know, we see increasingly that that government is run by maybe two concentric circles here. One is basically the Premier (Mr. Filmon), includes Jules Benson. We saw in MTS it included Eric Stefanson, the Minister of Finance. We see that one very, very insular circle in there. A funny part is I have talked to members opposite. You know, they are probably more frustrated than we are at that small little group that runs things over there.
* (1750)
But there is another small group, and actually it has kind of spun out a bit now, and it is the other hand of this whole Frankenstein that we see over there in terms of the government are the spinners. Now they used to be in-house, but they found out they could make a heck of a lot more money by just sort of going out into the supposed--I love this word--the private sector, where you get to cash in on all these public sector contracts.
You know, one Barb Biggar, for example, she has done very well out of that. There is this whole sort of money going out to Barb Biggar and various political connections to go back in with that. We saw that, as the member pointed out, for example, with MTS. They did not even wait for MTS to be sold off. They were using various ads, and they were using our money to try and persuade us that we did not believe what we believed.
You know I find it is interesting because members opposite might wish to note that perhaps going into the election, perhaps it worked. Perhaps some of the fooling of people, you know the expression: you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. I reference MTS. By the time they got finished with their massive advertising campaign directed by Barb Biggar using Bill Fraser's signature, by the time they finished with that, what was the support level for the sale of MTS? It was not even 20 percent.
Seventy-eight percent of rural Manitobans were opposed to the sale, two-thirds of Manitobans generally. You know, it should be, I think, quite instructive because I think people have gotten cynical about the members opposite. Just think of what they promised going into the 1995 election, and let there be no doubt that they went to new heights in terms of publicity. Who can forget that document put out by Rural Development? I think it had 14 pictures of Len Derkach, the minister responsible for Rural Development; 14 pictures, count them. Have you ever seen the kids' books like spot Waldo? Well, you could not do that with spot the minister because he was in every single picture, every single picture. But of course it was put out as public information. I guess it is sort of like our minister is not well known, so let us put his picture in 14 times.
An Honourable Member: Who was that?
Mr. Ashton: Who was that? The minister--in fact, the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) was probably jealous. They have never done that for him. I do not want to give them ideas.
But, you know, some of that cynicism, it backfired. I really say to members opposite because I am just waiting. I think the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) pointed out that we are getting close to an election, and I would like to put on the record on our side, the sooner the better, because we cannot wait to get out there and face this government on the campaign trail.
But I get the feeling--okay, I will make this prediction, Madam Speaker, on the record. I am not expecting an election call within the next few weeks, let alone the next few months. I think, well, okay, it could be a year, and I will tell you why, because after this session is over, they are going to sit down with the spinners, with their publicity consultants, they are going to say, you know, we have got a slight problem here. People are starting to see through, after 10 years, the arrogance that--well, some words I cannot use on the record. I am not sure if referencing--
An Honourable Member: Oh, what a tangled web we weave--
Mr. Ashton: Oh, well, Oh, what a tangled web we weave, in order to deceive. But I am only using that in the same way that the government House leader (Mr. McCrae) used the word. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition then, now the Premier (Mr. Filmon), used the word, and our current Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), but the point is they are going to sit down, and they are going to say they have got a problem.
You know, there is something that is starting to be very obvious about this government, and that is I think--I do not know if I can use this word, but I am sure I will be advised by the government House leader if I cannot but--a certain sleaze factor. I would say that they are going to have difficulty with that. I did not reference any individual member. I was not talking about that, but I think people are going to have to sit down, and do you know what they are going to do? I make this prediction. They are going to call up Barb Biggar. They are going to bring in all their experts, the Republican specialists. They are going to say we have a problem. After 10 years, people think we are arrogant, we are out of touch, there is that factor that I just referenced. What do we do? You know what the response is going to be? The Republicans are going to come in and say, hey, you are in government. Ten million dollars worth of ads. They will say: use the taxpayers' money. Now is the chance.
An Honourable Member: They might bring Mike Bessey back.
Mr. Ashton: Well, they might even bring--I think Mike Bessey is doing rather too well to be persuaded to come back here. I do not think Barb Biggar will want her old job back either. They are both doing quite well.
But I make that prediction, because you know what we are going to see? I make a prediction right now. I think we are going to start seeing--well, we are already seeing the Minister responsible for MPIC (Mr. McCrae) in these TV ads. His face is there. Who knows what the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) will come up with if you give him a chance? Maybe the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer)--you know, they are going to start trying to publicize themselves.
Who knows what they will try and do with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews)? That will be a challenge for them, I must say.
My suggestion to members opposite, I say that you are going to have to get really creative, because there is a huge cynicism level. Now, think about it. What are you going to go into the next year? What are you going to run on in the next election? I mean, the formula that worked so well in 1995--[interjection] Exactly, save the Jets. All the mantras. I mean, what are you going to run on? We are not going to sell off Manitoba Hydro. I can see those ads. They will work really well.
Mr. Chairman, $10 million, how about we--you could have the minister bring in, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) could stand there and make solemn promises. We will never sell off Manitoba Hydro. At the end they could do a tag line. Trust us.
That will go down real well. Just think, where are you going to be? What are you going to promise?
The government House leader was talking about, let us go for four out of four. I can tell you one thing. I said it before at the beginning of my speech, and I will end on this. You can fool some of the people some of the time. All right, that worked in 1995. People actually believed you, but you cannot fool them all of the time.
I encourage members opposite that if you have any doubt that your credibility as a government has slipped dramatically, just go and knock on a few doors and ask people: what do you think about what we did on the Jets? Ask some of the young people that voted for your government based on the Winnipeg Jets. In Riel, for example, you know, ask about that. Ask them what they think about what you did, what you said and what you did about MTS. Then ask them: Do you trust us on Hydro? Aha. You know the response you will get.
I say to members opposite: your days of being able to fool any more of the people out there than you have already are long gone. You can bring in all the advertising you want, all the Republican consultants, but I think the people are seeing through the veneer. I say to you: spend the time that you got left in government, spend that next year or so--I predict it may even go longer than a year, because I do not think they are going to be--all bets are off here about when the election is.
I tell you that you are going to have the most creative image consultants in the world, because they cannot turn around what you have done, which is not to be up front with the people of Manitoba. You are a tired and arrogant government. Time to step aside.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., when this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) will have five minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Thursday).