* (1440)

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be dealing with the Estimates for Executive Council. Would the First Minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Can the Premier indicate if he has any further information on the specifics of farm aid? What specific announcements will he be announcing per acre as a contingency plan for unseeded acreage?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I have a news release that was issued in Brandon this afternoon. It indicated that Manitoba farmers who have been hit hard by flooding and low prices in recent months will be getting Agriculture Income Disaster Assistance funding faster and will have easier access to funds through changes to the national Net Income Stabilization Account program.

Federal Minister Mr. Vanclief has said that a total of $22 million in additional NISA funding will be accessible immediately to farmers in Manitoba. Farmers will be eligible for an advance payment of up to 60 percent under the 1999 AIDA program. Farmers short of cash could be eligible to receive both a payment for the 1998 program and an advance on the 1999 program in the next few months. Producers are encouraged to submit their 1998 AIDA applications before the July 31 deadline.

Our provincial Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) is quoted as saying that the changes being announced today will provide approximately $18 million in assistance to Manitoba farmers who will not be able to seed their land this spring due to excess moisture. This assistance under AIDA will not only help farmers, but also the businesses in the area who are being impacted by the disaster.

NISA changes will see the minimum income trigger amount increase from $10,000 to $20,000 for an individual and from $20,000 to $35,000 for farm families. Another measure will help expanding operations more easily access their accounts. The changes will also indicate a provision which will allow both a NISA withdrawal and deposit in the same year. It will also be easier for producers to use the interim withdrawal feature of NISA. There will be more time allowed, that is, a full year instead of three months, for producers to repay funds to their accounts. When they withdraw more than they are eligible for under the payment triggers and they are not able to repay, they will be allowed to re-enter the program sooner than they can under the current rules, two years instead of three.

Those are all the details that I have at my disposal.

Mr. Doer: If the $18 million is correct, notwithstanding NISA, if we are dealing with a million acres of land that has led to speculation in terms of being unseeded land at best, based on the situation, I am just trying to do some calculations, that would appear to me to be a small amount of money per acre. It would appear to me to be well below the $50 million per acre that everyone is talking about as a minimum payment. Has the government calculated the per-acreage payment and does it not leave a huge discrepancy between what is needed and what has been announced?

* (1450)

Mr. Filmon: The latest information I was handed just before going in to the House today was that the unseeded acreage in Manitoba is approximately 750,000 acres, and my understanding is that this would make the approximate acreage payment about $25 an acre.

Mr. Doer: Of course this will be an ongoing issue, so we will continue to monitor it along with the government.

I would like to ask the Premier some other questions dealing with his staff. Can the Premier indicate whether Mr. Sokolyk was dismissed or did he resign?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Sokolyk spoke to the Clerk of the Executive Council indicating that he was wanting to resign and asked about the possibility of negotiating a modest severance that would be equivalent to what he would be entitled to if he were severed. That was done and based on his number of years of employment. He was given the payment that he would have as a senior officer received.

Mr. Doer: The announcement was made in July; of course, the Premier stated that there was no coupling of the announcement with the so-called Monnin inquiry. Of course, we found out later on that the testimony from Mr. Sokolyk was changing and then changed, of course, again. Can the Premier indicate, Mr. Chairperson, through you to the Premier, can he indicate what the severance payment was? How much money was it and based on what entitlement?

Mr. Filmon: He received one month of pay for every year of service, which was a total of eight months, and it amounted to $65,400, I am informed.

Mr. Doer: The $65,400 was paid out. Was the Premier not aware at the time that Mr. Sokolyk had been giving evidence and testimony to legal counsel that was retained by the Conservative Party and that his testimony to legal counsel in his first statement and his changed statement would have provided grounds for potential culpability in this pending affair, which eventually happened? Did the Premier make this decision of severance or did the Clerk of Cabinet make it?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated publicly at the time, I had not seen or had any knowledge of any testimony that he had given. In fact, his announced resignation took me completely by surprise. It was only later, and I do not know how many days or weeks later, but it was that last Friday of the month of July that I received that information. It was based on receiving then a transcript of his statement that he made to the inquiry, a copy of which was given to the legal counsel for the Conservative Party, which was then shared with me. I would have to go back and check the dates. My recollection is that the resignation took place probably a week or more ahead of the time that I received the information.

Mr. Doer: In the period after the government announced on the Monday that former Justice Monnin would be hired to conduct an inquiry until the date of Mr. Sokolyk's resignation, how many times did the Premier meet with the Conservative legal counsel about the conduct of Mr. Sokolyk?

Mr. Filmon: I do not have any information on that, and it would be difficult for me to recall that. Just from memory, I do not think I began my meetings with him until after Mr. Sokolyk's resignation, and the earliest would have been some time after that. I do not know.

Mr. Doer: Did the Clerk of Cabinet meet with the Conservative Party's legal counsel prior to that or at any other occasion subsequent to that?

Mr. Filmon: I am informed not.

Mr. Doer: Did any member of his staff meet with legal counsel prior to the resignation of Mr. Sokolyk on the date released by the Premier? I was in the Legislature that day when the announcement was made. I speculated that there was a potential link between the allegations and the resignation, of course, which eventually became true. The Premier, of course, the same day denied that. In fact, there was quite a testy exchange that I noticed on TV, with the Premier being pulled back from that exchange by his press secretary.

Did any member of the Premier's staff meet with legal counsel before the resignation of Mr. Sokolyk on the matters germane to Mr. Sokolyk's resignation, as identified later on with evidence?

Mr. Filmon: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Doer: Did Mr. Sokolyk meet with legal counsel before his resignation?

Mr. Filmon: I have no information on that, Mr. Chairman.

* (1500)

Mr. Doer: Well, the Premier just said not to his knowledge. Mr. Sokolyk was a member of his staff before the resignation, and I am wondering whether he, in fact, met with legal counsel. I mean, the decision to issue severance dealing with somebody that ultimately could have been dismissed for cause was made by the Clerk of Cabinet and obviously must be approved by the Premier. Did the Premier investigate whether legal counsel had met with the individual that was resigning or can he say that he does not know then? He has two answers: not to his knowledge nobody met and he does not know. Which one is it?

Mr. Filmon: It is both. At the time, I thought that the question was referenced to somebody else other than Mr. Sokolyk when I said not to my knowledge. In terms of any meeting between Mr. Sokolyk and the lawyer for the party, the member would have to ask Mr. Sokolyk or the counsel for the party, but not to my knowledge did that occur, and I have not had any discussion with them on the issue. I do not recall any information being shared that would have implicated Mr. Sokolyk, or I would not have been as strong in my denial that the two were linked.

Mr. Doer: Did the Clerk of Cabinet recommend that severance be applied here and there was no potential issue of cause to the Premier?

Mr. Filmon: At the time we had no reason to believe that Mr. Sokolyk was implicated in it, so a negotiation took place in good faith. It was clear, I think, to the Clerk who was dealing with him that Mr. Sokolyk was under great stress, and he did not believe he was in a position to carry on. So the negotiation took place under those circumstance.

Mr. Doer: The Premier has testified that Mr. Sokolyk told him in June at a staff meeting that "they are onto something," and you advised him to get a lawyer and remove himself from the meetings. So the Premier, when he denied that Mr. Sokolyk was involved in any potential wrongdoing in his press scrum or he said he did not have any connection when he approved the severance pay, there already was direct communication from Mr. Sokolyk that would have alerted him prior to Mr. Sokolyk resigning. Did the Premier not recall his conversation in June with Mr. Sokolyk where he advised him that they are onto this issue or there is something to it? Mr. Chairperson, if there was something to it, why was the Premier not concerned about his initial conversation from Mr. Sokolyk (a) in terms of his denial in the media scrum, and (b) in terms of the application of taxpayers' money for severance?

Mr. Filmon: I just want to let the Leader of the Opposition know that I have testified under oath both directly to the counsel for the inquiry and then in a period of six and a half hours of cross-examination by the solicitor for his party, solicitor for Mr. Sutherland, solicitor for the Liberal Party, and counsel for the inquiry. I have said unequivocally, and I repeat for him, that I interpreted Mr. Sokolyk's offhand comment which was made in the space of less than 30 seconds, as I had all of this material that I normally carry in the House under my arm, straightening my tie and leaving my office, I interpreted the comment which was: It is not true, firstly. So the allegations were not true. When I said something does not add, he said: it is not true, but they have stumbled onto something, only to mean that Mr. Sokolyk had knowledge or information about the actions of others, not that he was in any way centrally involved. I have said that before. I have said it to my family. I have said it to many people with whom I had discussions on this matter before any of the information came out. But that was my sole and complete belief about it. As it turned out, as I said to the inquiry, I was completely shocked to find out that he was not only involved, but a central figure in the whole exercise.

Mr. Doer: Given the public allegations that were being made at the time by Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Sigurdson and others, was the Premier not concerned about approving severance that had been negotiated by the Clerk of Cabinet? Was he not concerned about that, given the serious allegations and the fact that allowing somebody to resign versus dismissal for just cause has a different financial reality to it in terms of the taxpayers, and a different accountability in terms of the Premier's Office?

Mr. Filmon: There are two sides to that. As somebody who has been an employer in both the private sector and the public sector, as somebody who has obviously had the experience of having had the former CEO of MPI sue the government successfully for hundreds of thousands of dollars, indeed, millions, over a severance that was deemed to have been for cause, I know that it is never, ever a guarantee that one is going to be successful under any circumstances in severing somebody, whether there is perceived to be cause or not.

So when somebody says all they want is what they would normally get under the civil service arrangements, I would assume that the Clerk of the Executive Council would take a good look at that and say, well, is this reasonable, because under many other circumstances and our New Democratic predecessors built in clauses that gave people two years of pay for being removed from their position. There are plenty of precedents today that say that those kinds of settlements could and are being awarded, so when the Clerk sits down with an individual and says that there is a severance that only amounts to what you would normally be entitled to on leaving government, I accepted it as being a reasonable proposal, quite honestly.

Mr. Doer: I have no difficulty in the formula and the one month. In fact, the Premier and I are both grandfathered, if you will, on that provision that was dealt with before because I think that, and of course the Fox-Decent report changed some of that, but I have no difficulty whatsoever with the one month for every year of service. That is not a problem I have, and I personally, with CEOs, had a report written on CEOs' salaries because, in my view, some of the–we had a consulting firm deal with that. We used to have perks because the salaries were inadequate to hire people, and I made public statements that actually were criticized by the Liberals on the MPI chair recruitment in one of the actions of the government because I thought we should be more honest on salary and requiring less incentives on the other side, the perk side if you will, of the job.

* (1510)

So I have never criticized the report that was issued by Clayton Manness. I initiated it, we handed it off in transition, I supported it after it was dropped, and I have supported it since the government has initiated the recommendations there for people. The formula is not something I have difficulty with. It is the application of the formula for somebody that is already alleged to be in trouble by other people and resigns at the end of July under pretty heated circumstances we thought at the time. Obviously, our judgment about the circumstances was more accurate than the Premier's judgment. When he denied it had anything to do with the inquiry, we said publicly it had, we believed.

I guess that really raises the other issue of judgment. Two years ago we moved a motion in this Legislature. I have only moved one motion to delete one salary line in the number of years that we have dealt with each other in Estimates. I only moved one salary line ever in his Estimates, or I stand to be–I am not 100 percent sure. I am just going by memory, but I believe I only deleted one salary. I know it was Mr. Sokolyk's salary in 1997. We had done that because we had heard from a number of sources about the so-called dirty tricks that were being conducted by and around the Premier's Office, phoning radio talk show hosts and saying you are somebody else. A constituent of Avis Gray was one of the people that called, and the dulcet voice of Ron Arnst was clearly identified, denied by the way by the deputy premier and all and sundry for a couple of days until Bob Irving, I think, went on and said: yes, I worked with him in Brandon; I know his voice.

Other members of the Executive Council were phoning from the Legislative Building to the open line shows alleging to be somebody else. Letters were being written. There was a whole series of other events that we cited. At that time the Premier had an early warning system. We do not come in here in Estimates, I do not come in here in Estimates, trying to fire the staff the Premier hires, but we had heard enough evidence about Mr. Sokolyk that should have had the bells ringing in the Premier's ears.

Now why do we in opposition, in hindsight, have better judgment than the Premier on the quality of the staff and the kind of dirty tricks that were evident then and now very evident after the Monnin inquiry? Why is he able to hire people like Mr. Sokolyk on the political side? I am not talking about the civil service side and people before us at this table whom I respect. I am talking about the chief of staff, the political operative in the Premier's Office, and why were we able to have a judgment about this individual that has now stood the test of time, and the Premier did not?

Why is it that members of his own party were concerned about this individual that we had heard from, members of the public, members of the media, members around this building, members that are involved in political affairs were worried about this individual? Why was the Premier not able to see this? Is that because he really does believe that people that work him should be doing anything for political advantage, the kind of Bob Kozminski theory of government: I will do whatever it takes to defeat the other side. Is that the kind of modus operandi or is the Premier just short of judgment when it comes to political staff?

Mr. Filmon: Well, Mr. Chairman, obviously, hindsight is 20-20 vision. I have had the privilege of being in office for a long time, more than 11 years as Premier. Prior to that I was obviously Leader of the Opposition. I was a minister in the government of Sterling Lyon. I was in the private sector where I employed many people over the years, and I believe that my judgment about people has been solid. It has been sound, but every once in a while everybody can make an error in judgment. I suppose that I could only be accused of being perfect if I were not human. I am human, and I cannot honestly take any other lesson from this other than to say that throughout my life, I am sure that I have made errors in judgment and errors in assessment of circumstances. This is one of them, and just because the Leader of the Opposition raised it does not automatically make it right.

I mean, his colleagues in government have raised issues about individuals on numerous occasions, and if I have to go back and start looking at the Hansards and the files of how many times they were wrong on issues that they raised in this House to demonstrate that everybody makes a mistake from time to time, the question is whether or not the mistake is one of such major proportion as in this instance where obviously it did have a significant impact on the career of not only one individual but on the careers of several people who engaged in the process ultimately.

That is what Mr. Monnin said. He said that these people paid with their careers and their reputations, and it was a human tragedy, I think is another statement that he made. Does that mean that I should have been able to anticipate this? No. I regarded what the Leader of the Opposition was doing at the time as playing politics. In the end, he was proven to be correct in his judgment of the individual, and for that, obviously it has been a very painful experience for me to have been wrong in my judgment of the individual.

Mr. Doer: I very rarely criticize senior civil servants. I have gone back over Hansard over a number of years, and I have been very careful about that, because I think that the Premier and I can argue about something and accuse each other of something, but we can defend ourselves. People who cannot, it is a different matter.

And I agree that none of us are perfect. I will say that about myself in a moment. People that we have employed make mistakes. People that are volunteers make mistakes. When people make mistakes, all I expect from them is honesty, because the honesty is the one value that we need in people we work with and we need with volunteers. If people make a mistake, we want honest acknowledgement of those mistakes so you can move on, because to not be honest is to compound it and compound it and compound it again. Even though the public is cynical about the word of all of us, I believe that most people in this room are honourable, have a disagreement about the means of doing a better job for Manitoba, but I was concerned about honesty.

With Mr. Sokolyk I was concerned about a culture of–I guess Mr. Kozminski stated it, and I witnessed it in other examples, where if one person from one office phoned an open-line talk show, I would assume that that may be overzealousness, but when two people do it, I know it is a deliberate campaign, and the Premier has been around the block enough to know it is a deliberate campaign. Then following from that, other issues that became identified later on that I described in 1997, I thought that was a symptom of something that went beyond the usual give and take in this Legislature.

So I moved the motion, and if the Premier checks his records, I think it is the only motion on an individual I have moved that I certainly can recall. I went back to 1990. And I was not playing politics with staff. I have never played politics with the Premier's staff in Estimates, because the Premier and I are elected to deal with policy and political and principled issues. The staff are here to do their job to the best of their ability and do it honestly and with integrity on behalf of the people of Manitoba.

* (1520)

The other staff I have actually criticized the Premier on has been Mr. Benson. He and I have had arguments in previous incarnations, in our previous Estimates processes about Mr. Benson. Does the Premier feel he used good judgment with the selection of Mr. Benson for the job he performed?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I had the same discussion with various different lawyers and representatives at the Monnin inquiry. When you have an individual who has been a chartered accountant for 40 years, who is the senior managing partner for western Canada of one of the largest–I think it was at the time the largest multinational accounting firm in Canada, somebody who has an immense history of positive experience in his profession and in the business community, I do not think there is any way that the Leader of the Opposition, nor I, nor any human being, would have seen the possibility of him engaging on behalf of a friend in a process that was dishonest and unethical. I just, in looking back, did not foresee the possibility. I would be surprised if the Leader of the Opposition could honestly tell me that he could have foreseen that, judging the person's record.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairperson, if you look on the record when the person was appointed, I was quite concerned about the treasurer of the Conservative Party becoming then the secretary of the Treasury Board. I was quite concerned about an absolute partisan–not a partisan, I mean there are people that are hired from time to time that are consistent with the government's views, and the public gives them a mandate to do so. I was concerned about the role of somebody who is in charge of raising money being in charge of recommending the merit or lack of merit of a contract, so we can go back and forth on this issue.

From the early times that this individual was hired, I never questioned his CA qualifications, and I never questioned his business qualifications, his experience in the private sector. I guess it really begs the question: what is the culture in the Premier's Office that allowed for people to do things and nobody–the only person apparently who raised this concern was Felix Holtmann. If you look at the old Sodom and Gomorrah, finally one person, or I think it started with a number of people, then it was down to 10 to save the community.

What does it say about the people, the culture, in the Premier's Office? I think Bob Kozminski may have stated it, regrettably, correctly: I will do whatever it takes. Is the Premier not concerned that not one person, not one friend of his, not one person who is doing business deals with the government, not one of his senior staff alerted him before the '95 election or right after the '95 election, before the Elections Manitoba investigation took place? What does that say about the culture of the Premier's Office? Is it absolutely geared for winning at all costs, and really is that beyond all the testimony and beyond all the people that have been cited? Is the Premier not worried about that conclusion that is easily drawn from the friends of the Premier, Mr. Kozminski, Mr. Thorsteinson, from the members of the Conservative Party who obviously would be friends of ministers and acquaintances and from the senior staff of government. Is there not something rotten in the state of Denmark, and is the Premier not concerned about that?

Mr. Filmon: Just addressing the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, firstly, and he got it wrong again today, as he got it wrong when he made his allegations about the appointment of Mr. Benson.

He said the person who was raising the money for the party should not then go into a senior staff position. Mr. Benson did not raise any money for the party. He was the chartered accountant who was the treasurer, who did the books for the party. He did not go out and knock on doors raising money for the party.

He had it wrong when he made his allegations before publicly and in this Legislature, and he still has it wrong. He does not understand the difference between the head of PC Manitoba Fund, the fundraising arm, and the treasurer, the person who keeps track of the books. So having somebody who happened to perform that function for the party then perform that function in government, he obviously had demonstrated competence. The member referred to his competence as a chartered accountant. That is precisely why he was I believed an appropriate choice as the secretary of Treasury Board. That is exactly who is in that position. It is the bean counter. It is not the money raiser.

The other aspect to it, Mr. Chairman, is that as Mr. Monnin indicates, nobody, nobody outside of the group of five whom he names in his report was aware of this. This was not something that was the subject of discussion, either socially or in a business or government sense. I mean, I will read it for the member opposite. I mean, we are ploughing over the same ground that many, many lawyers, that many, many very learned people spent nine months on, nine months interviewing 72 people, anybody who had any knowledge whatsoever of the process or of the actions, including somebody who overheard a conversation in a coffee shop, somebody who was in a pub and overheard a discussion.

He mentions Felix Holtmann. I have no idea what that reference is. Mr. Holtmann ultimately went and gave a statement about a conversation that he overheard at a pub between two individuals, never repeated that conversation to me or anybody I know, Mr. Chairman, so this is supposed to demonstrate somehow that everybody knew?

The fact of the matter is that this is what Mr. Monnin said: "I find no evidence that any elected PC member, any member of the Party's executive, nor any other member of the Party's management committee on which Thorsteinson sat was aware of or aided and abetted in either the plot or the cover-up.

"As far as the cover-up is concerned, it is the handy work of three individuals. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone else knew."

Seventy-two people were interviewed by the investigators. Thirty-seven of them appeared in public session under Mr. Monnin's inquiry, and he finds there is no evidence to suggest that anyone else knew. If you want to read it–I mean, he speculates as to why. I mean, these people were obviously embarrassed by what they did. They would have lost their careers over talking about it, so it became a completely buried issue and secret, that it took this inquiry to get out.

As painful as it has been, Mr. Chairman, I can tell the member opposite that I believe that we, all of us collectively, have learned from this process. The members opposite can laugh because they think this is just a political issue, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), but this is an issue that is as serious–

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson. I think it is only appropriate if the Premier is to make comments about my laughing. Indeed I was laughing at the Premier's statements which I continue to feel lack a fair amount of credibility on this issue, not at the seriousness of the issue itself. I know we often get into this back and forth, but for the Premier to get into that, I think, he is just indicating once again how little he has learned from the experience. I think we saw this in Question Period today, by the way, Mr. Chairperson, when this Premier would not even ask a question about the conduct of his minister. So, yes, I was laughing but laughing at the lack of credibility of this Premier.

* (1530)

Mr. Filmon: Same point of order, Mr. Chair, the lack of credibility of course is demonstrated by the members opposite who, having called for a full, complete and thorough public inquiry, did not have the courage of their own convictions to state any of the innuendo on the record and to be cross-examined so that they could continue to use innuendo and falsehoods in the public debate over this issue. Mr. Chairman, I went before the inquiry. I went under oath in public session and was cross-examined for six hours so that I could answer everybody truthfully on this issue, unlike the member for Thompson who will prefer to deal in innuendo and falsehood as opposed to being honest and truthful.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): The honourable member for Thompson did not have a point of order. So we will carry on.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairperson, we also know that Monnin stated a number of things. We have stated those and we will restate them, page 16 and others, but he did say that, even in concluding his report, he was not convinced that he had all the evidence that may be there. We did not have all the evidence when we raised the questions in 1995, obviously. We did not have all the evidence when we raised the questions in the House in 1999. We knew that there was something wrong. I mean, we know when there is that much money that goes to somebody in a campaign. More money was donated by Darryl Sutherland to his own campaign than the Premier donated to the Conservative Party. I mean you have to be either not wanting to find out or relatively stupid to not know that there is something wrong there. I knew there was something wrong there. The Premier knew there was something wrong there. How could somebody of very modest means donate more money to their political party than the millionaires' club across the way or even some of the people of means here on this side? Surely to goodness something was rotten in the state of Denmark.

Monnin says that still not all the evidence is before us. He is not convinced, and we are not convinced. The public is not convinced. I can tell you when I listen to people out there, they say: give me a break. The Premier hires a person, puts them in a position of trust. He hires another person, puts them in a position of trust. He selects the campaign manager. He selects the treasurer. He selects the committee of the PC Party, his best friends whom he golfs with and dines with, or involved at the other end of moving money under the radar screen over to aboriginal candidates in other communities. You know if one person is involved, people might give you the benefit of the doubt. Two, three, four, five, six, seven?

You know, you keep saying to people: I knew nothing. The public is pretty smart about these things. There is the inquiry and then there is the inquiry. The public is pretty wise at the end of the day, pretty wise. Judge Monnin was pretty wise, because he left himself some statement when the Premier says 75 persons testified, blah, blah, blah. Do not forget, his own principal staff had to change his testimony three times. There might be a fourth version; we do not know.

The chief accountant for the Conservative Party, a person held in responsibility for allocating the private liquor licences, changed his testimony after the Premier testified. Testimony changed as evidence was produced. It changed and changed and changed again. So it speaks to the culture in the Premier's Office. It speaks to the fact that nobody stood up starting with the Premier, because I do not believe for a moment that the Premier who knows something about campaign finances–the person from the Native Voice candidate donated more money to his campaign than some of the wealthiest members of this Legislature donated to their own political party.

I have never understood why Elections Manitoba did not know then what we knew that something was wrong, somebody passed some money to this individual. I do not know why the Premier with all his years in politics did not know something was wrong. How many people does the Premier know over the years that donated that much money to their own individual campaign? How many people of modest means would donate thousands of dollars to their own campaign? So I ask the Premier, was he not curious about that fact after there were allegations in the Interlake? Was he not curious in 1995 with his political knowledge? You are not a stupid person, you are knowledgeable. You are politically experienced. You have been in council. You have been in the cabinet for the Legislature, in cabinet, in opposition.

Can he honestly say to me that some alarms did not go off when he heard that Darryl Sutherland had donated thousands of dollars to his own campaign? Did he not think, based on his experience, something was wrong here and the truth had to be revealed, or was it the culture to hear no evil, see no evil or speak no evil?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I did not know Darryl Sutherland. I had no knowledge of who he was or what he did, and did not ever make it my business to find out because I was confident in the inquiry that was being done by Elections Manitoba. I believed that they had the ability and the power and the wherewithal to get to the bottom of it. Once they did their investigation and made their report, I was satisfied that they had done what was appropriate. I have had countless, countless people from positions of responsibility who know this Legislature, including former Premiers, say you have every reason to believe in the investigation of Elections Manitoba. Why would you have such a statutory body set up with the powers it has for investigation if you did not follow their advice and investigation?

Mr. Doer: So I come back to the situation then. Is there not something rotten in the state of Denmark? Is there not something fundamentally wrong with the kind of–well, you know I argued two years in 1997 there was something wrong. I do not understand why the Premier did not see it then, does not see it now. I am going to follow it up with a further question to the Premier.

When we raised the issue of Jules Benson, when we raised the issue of Mr. Benson, the Premier testified that he would refer the matter to the Civil Service Commission. Did he refer it to the Civil Service Commission?

Mr. Filmon: The member is going to have to amplify what he asked to be referred to the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. Doer: During the Premier's testimony, we raised questions about breaches of The Civil Service Act dealing with the civil servant involved in financial matters in an election campaign pursuant to the numbers of cheques issued and dealt with by a civil servant who was involved specifically in the campaign and also in a so-called civil service meritorious position. Did the Premier refer that matter to the Civil Service Commission as he testified, and did the Civil Service Commission investigate this? This was after the Premier testified and before Mr. Benson resigned.

* (1540)

Mr. Filmon: I think the member opposite will have to be more specific. I am not familiar with all of the things that he is alleging were discussed and what comments were made.

Mr. Doer: Well, the Premier in his testimony testified that he would–he was asked by legal counsel at the inquiry whether he had investigated the potential breaches of The Civil Service Act dealing with the issues of political parties, monies, and civil servants. He said he would refer that matter to the Civil Service Commission. I am just asking whether his testimony under oath was followed, and can he report back to this Legislature on the results of that commitment he made under oath?

Mr. Filmon: At the time we did not know all of the details of Mr. Benson's involvement, and obviously we wanted to get more information through the course of the inquiry, and then judgments could be made. So I do not think I made a specific referral to the Civil Service Commission, knowing that Mr. Monnin was going to be brining up more information and Mr. Benson had not yet testified, so we did not have the full verification of what his role was.

Mr. Doer: Well, the Premier made a specific commitment that he would take the questions raised about the breach of The Civil Service Act to the Civil Service Commission. The Premier made that commitment. He did not say that I would leave that to the inquiry, that I would leave that to Justice Monnin, that I would leave that to a future date; he made the commitment under oath. This is the first time I have heard now that he did not take it to the Civil Service Commission. I want to know why he did not, why he would say it under oath and why he did not follow it up, because it was about five weeks later that Mr. Benson then resigned, again with different interpretations, but I will get to that in a minute.

Why did he not send it to the Civil Service Commission the next day as he committed himself to? That is a pretty strong statement under oath to give a commitment; it is even stronger, I dare say, than Hansard.

Mr. Filmon: As I say, I know that I would have wanted to have had verification of his position from his testimony before the inquiry before going to the Civil Service Commission on the matter.

Mr. Doer: Well, the verification would come from the Civil Service Commission. You were asked specific questions dealing with The Civil Service Act, the prohibitions of civil servants being involved directly in money matters during campaigns, and in answer to a question under oath, you said you would take that matter to the Civil Service Commission. You did not say I want verification before I take it to the Civil Service Commission.

You had been asked questions based on evidence, and you said that that would go to the Civil Service Commission. You are not supposed to be the judge and jury when a matter is before the Civil Service Commission. If there are issues to be verified or not, pursuant to a breach of The Civil Service Act, you are supposed to send them there, not to satisfy yourself one way or the other. You could say that under oath. You did not say that under oath. You said: I will send that to the Civil Service Commission.

So I want to know why you did not do that, why you say it based on questions raised to you about the breach of The Civil Service Act, why you did not send it to the Civil Service Commission. Was the commission, and it is only apparent now, was it misled by you on your testimony?

Mr. Filmon: I do not have any information, and until I review my comments before the inquiry, I cannot really respond any further.

Mr. Doer: Who is responsible for following up on the commitments the Premier made in his testimony? Was it the Clerk of the Cabinet or the Premier directly himself?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I will take the responsibility for them. I am not suggesting that it is anybody's responsibility. I am just saying that I want to review what is being alleged and what actions I may or may not have taken.

Mr. Doer: So you are saying that this matter never went to the Civil Service Commission after you testified and before he resigned?

Mr. Filmon: I am saying that I have to investigate to report back.

Mr. Doer: With Mr. Gajadharsingh who was the contact with the Civil Service Commission after it was raised as an issue? Who contacted the Civil Service Commission? Was it not the Clerk of Cabinet? Is that not the appropriate connection, the Premier to the Clerk of the Cabinet to the Civil Service Commissioner, Mr. Hart? Is that not the way it would work and has worked in the past?

Mr. Filmon: That might be one of the ways. I suppose it could be directly from my office. We would have to investigate.

Mr. Doer: If the Premier makes a commitment to take something to the Civil Service Commission, it would normally flow not from the Premier himself to the Civil Service Commission but from the Clerk of Cabinet, who is the senior deputy minister of government, to the appropriate deputy minister, in this case the equivalent of the deputy minister in an independent position.

Surely the Premier is not saying that the Civil Service Commissioner sits in his office and works by some kind of mythical osmosis in terms of what should be referred to them or not. There is a chain of protocol from the Premier through his senior staff to the independent Civil Service Commission. Is that not the case? Is there not a protocol to this? It is not up to the Civil Service Commission to be present in all rooms, at all inquiries that deal with matters of the public service, to be aware of these things. There has to be a follow-up, is there not? As I recall it, with the questions raised with the immigrant issues, with civil servants potentially or allegedly working at one private enterprise at the same time they were working in the public, the Premier said he would refer it to the Civil Service Commission through the Clerk of Cabinet. I am almost going by memory now in the press release, but that is my recollection of it. It would make sense to me, because that would make sense. That is the normal pattern. So would this not be the normal pattern of events that the Premier would refer a matter to the Civil Service Commission through his Clerk of Cabinet?

* (1550)

Mr. Filmon: That might be a normal pattern, Mr. Chairman, but I have already said that I need to review what was said and what commitments were made and investigate what was done to follow up on that.

Mr. Doer: So the matter never went to the Civil Service Commissioner; questions of Mr. Benson's alleged breach never went to the Civil Service Commission. You said that earlier.

Mr. Filmon: I indicated earlier I cannot confirm or deny that until I do an investigation.

Mr. Doer: Is it possible for somebody just to phone the Civil Service Commissioner and find out. I mean, this is not something that is sort of–we are not talking paper clips in the Premier's office here. We are talking a major commitment, we believe, that he made in the inquiry, and it would have–I do not imagine there are too many of the Premier's staff he is sending for Civil Service investigations. One would hope not. Can somebody find out, somebody monitoring these questions, and can we find out? It is just a simple phone call away, I would suggest, to find out whether that, in fact, happened. We should have a yes or no answer. If it happened, yes. If it did not, no. We are not asking for the Book of Revelations. We just want to know whether it happened or not.

Mr. Filmon: We will follow up on it and report back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Doer: Who fired Jules Benson?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from Mr. Benson indicating that he was retiring from government.

Mr. Doer: Can the Premier indicate what the severance would be for Mr. Benson when he retired?

Mr. Filmon: My understanding is that he was awarded the standard civil service allocation of 15 weeks.

Mr. Doer: There was always a speculation about how much or how little the pension entitlement would be with the so-called preferential pension plan for Mr. Benson. Can the Premier indicate today what was the pension payout pursuant to the agreement agreed upon in the early '90s with Mr. Benson?

Mr. Filmon: As the member probably understands, he did not get any payout of pension upon retirement. During the course of his employment, for each year that he was employed, he got up to a maximum of $13,500 per year contributed towards an RRSP.

Mr. Doer: Can the Premier indicate then what was the total employer payout or the taxpayers' payout to that pension plan in the years that Mr. Benson worked for the Province of Manitoba?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I do not have that information. Mr. Benson was an employee of the Department of Finance, so it would be in their Estimates, and they would be able to get that for the member.

Mr. Doer: The Order-in-Council conditions that provided for the pensions were approved by the Premier in cabinet. They were superior to the civil service employer paid pension plan. We identified that with Mr. McFadyen's conditions in the last set of discussions. So this is a plan that the Premier indicated was applicable to three people, approved by the Premier and cabinet, the contract of which I believe was available through the Clerk of Cabinet to get the conditions of that when this was revealed that no longer were the specific conditions going to be made available by Order-in-Council. So, you know, this government has talked a lot about public disclosure and information, et cetera, et cetera, why will the Premier not give us the amount of money? Are they embarrassed by the significance of it? I just want to know why we cannot get that figure. It seems to me to be pretty routine.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, you know, we have been exceedingly co-operative, flexible in providing every bit of information, even to the extent of going through all this discussion about somebody who was not on my staff. He was a senior staff member of government. He was a cabinet secretary for the Treasury Board. He is an employee of the Department of Finance. I mean the member does not come here and ask me what is the pension that was paid out last year, the pension allocation that was paid out last year for the former Deputy Minister of Finance because he knows it is not in my Estimates. It is not in my departmental information. I am telling him that it was a maximum of $13,500 a year. He can calculate the number of years that he was employed in the position. It was probably something in the range of about six or seven years, and you can multiply that out and figure out the total maximum entitlement that the individual got.

I know that the member opposite when the NDP were in government paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars of pension allocations and severance pay to individuals. People like Michael Decter not only got all of that money but also got a contract awarded to them as part of their severance package, so he studied the taxes that were going to be able to be raised by the government, another $55,000 contract, all those kinds of things. If the member wants to start making a fuss, he can talk about all the things. I will talk about all the things that the New Democrats did for their special friends and political operatives who they hired in government. If he wants to take the number of years and multiply them by the approximate total of $13,500, he can figure it out. I do not have it in my Estimates, so I cannot get the detail for him.

Mr. Doer: Well, we will multiply $13,500 by the number of years he worked, and we will take that as the amount. I know the Premier is sensitive about this, and we have raised it before. But he should not be surprised that we are raising the issue of the pension issue. We raised it from the year it became public that that, in fact, information was being withheld from the public. You know, that is something we have raised every year in his Estimates because it is a policy decision made by the Premier, approved by cabinet for three individuals.

* (1600)

These were O/C appointments, all of them. The last time I looked, the Premier is responsible for Order in Council appointments as the chair of cabinet, and we consider these questions fair ball. I know the Premier does not, but that is why we are asking them and we do not apologize for it.

A further question to the Premier, Mr. Benson in testimony stated that it was made very clear to him that he should retire. Was the Clerk of Cabinet passing on his own view that he should retire, or was he passing on the view of his employer, the Premier, in that decision?

Mr. Filmon: The matter was discussed directly by the Clerk of the Executive Council and the former secretary of Treasury Board, Mr. Benson. Prior to his discussions with Mr. Benson, the Clerk discussed with me various options that he believed were appropriate to be discussed with Mr. Benson, and Mr. Benson chose to retire. I cannot go into the detail of personnel matters being discussed privately between two individuals, but I think it suffices to say that the Clerk did not choose to discuss options that would not have been acceptable to me. So the various options that were canvassed, all of which were acceptable to me, and certainly Mr. Benson's decision ultimately to retire was acceptable.

Mr. Doer: So the Premier approved of the discussions that Mr. Leitch was going to have with Mr. Benson prior to those discussions taking place.

Mr. Filmon: Yes, I approved of his sitting down and having discussions with Mr. Benson as to his status with the government and, yes, there were a variety of different options that would have been acceptable to me and, yes, ultimately I accepted his letter of retirement.

Mr. Doer: Did the Premier meet with legal counsel, and was he apprised between the date he testified and the date Mr. Benson retired on the changed testimony of Mr. McFarlane relating to the financial matters?

Mr. Filmon: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I was apprised by legal counsel of the changes in Mr. McFarlane's statement to the inquiry. That was prior to Mr. Benson's letter of retirement.

Mr. Doer: So, based on the information given to the Premier, the Premier felt it would be untenable for the government still to have Mr. Benson as secretary of Treasury Board, given the changed testimony of Mr. McFarlane. There was a cause-and-effect in terms of the evidence, the advice of counsel, and the status of Mr. Benson.

Mr. Filmon: I think it is accurate to say that I accepted Mr. Benson's letter of retirement.

Mr. Doer: Well, did the Clerk of Cabinet meet with the legal counsel, or was it the Premier who met with legal counsel? Was the legal counsel of the Conservative Party briefing the political head of government, being the Premier, as opposed to the Clerk of Cabinet?

Mr. Filmon: The Clerk of the Executive Council was called into the briefing by the legal counsel for the Conservative Party, since it involved a matter to do with a senior civil servant, so he could receive the information and briefing from the legal counsel.

Mr. Doer: So the Premier and the Clerk of Cabinet were made aware of the changed testimony of Mr. McFarlane. The Premier would have approved the action of the Clerk of Cabinet with Mr. Benson prior to his meeting with Mr. Benson?

Mr. Filmon: Yes, I approved of the Clerk of the Executive Council meeting with Mr. Benson. Yes, I approved of a range of different options that were to be considered in the discussion. Yes, I accepted Mr. Benson's letter of retirement.

Mr. Doer: As part of those options that were discussed, if Mr. Benson did not retire, was the option then to dismiss him?

Mr. Filmon: I am sure that the member opposite knows full well that, in matters of personnel, these matters, these discussions, are all done in confidence. It is not appropriate under any circumstances for us to declare or to talk about publicly personnel matters in this detail.

Mr. Doer: I know the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has some questions for the First Minister. I will certainly allow those to proceed.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I do have a number of questions that I was wanting to ask of the Premier, given this is the first opportunity to put on the record, or at least get the Premier on the record with a number of concerns that I have that are at least in part budget related and, in other parts, not.

But I wanted to start off, if I may, Mr. Chairperson, by referring to something that I often do within my constituency. That is to canvass feedback and opinions on a wide variety of issues. Generally speaking, I believe the support in terms of response I get is fairly decent, in excess of 10 percent of homes that I represent.

In the '97-98 survey that I did, one of the questions that I had in the survey was: In order to reduce our property taxes, should the provincial government gradually take over the financing of education through general revenues, which means that it would have to come up with money from somewhere else. Health care is funded through general revenues. The response to that particular question was that 49.1 percent said yes, 28.8 percent said no, and a small percentage had no opinion on the issue.

Mr. Chair, I know that the issue of property tax has been somewhat put to the side or put on the back burner by this government over the years. In fact, many would argue, including myself, that the only time the government has given any attention to the property tax issue was when they had the clawback a number of years ago.

Mr. Chairperson, I represent an area which I believe wants to see the government deal with the issue of property tax, and it is with great disappointment that I found that this particular budget did not deal with the property tax issue other than to say we are going to have this Lower Tax Commission, of course.

One of the results of that is that I posed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), because I think it was appropriate for the Minister of Finance also to be brought into this discussion, as to what sort of background, what has the government been doing, in particular that particular department been doing to address the property tax issue? How has this government gauged that particular issue? I was really quite disappointed in terms of, in my opinion, the government has not sought out public opinion on that particular issue.

* (1610)

In one of the North Times, my colleague from The Maples and I put forward a questionnaire. We did not get anywhere near the type of response I would have liked to have gotten in terms of numbers that I am used to when I do my own constituency surveys, but having said that, what I found interesting was that 23.8 percent of a value was attached to personal income tax being reduced, compared to 23.1 percent for property tax. Now, that survey went out through the community newspaper, a much wider spectrum of people, other school divisions, for example, than the constituents I represent.

But what I find, Mr. Chairperson, is that there is just a huge undercurrent of people who are really upset with the issue of property tax and the amount of property tax that has to be paid. A big part of that, no doubt, is because of that continual reliance of funding education on the property tax, and that brings me to the next point of whether it is offloading or the freezes or cutbacks in public education that has pushed up more of the school division levy onto the property tax. I have argued in the past that in particular Winnipeg No. 1 or the constituents in part that I represent today are paying a disproportionate amount of their fair share of property tax because the government has chosen to virtually ignore this issue.

In fact, Mr. Chairperson, government was able to con, I would suggest to you, the official opposition into supporting their budget. I believe in most part they supported it because the official opposition did not have the political courage to vote against this budget, because it is, in fact, a bad budget, the way in which it tries to portray the financing of the government or the way in which it tries to deal with the whole issue of tax fairness. When I look at it, I do not have any problem justifying to my constituents that I voted–

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the honourable member for Inkster when he is on a roll, but could I ask the two members who are carrying on this conversation to do so in the loge. I am having great difficulty hearing him. Thank you. The honourable member for Inkster to continue.

Mr. Lamoureux: I bring it up because it is one of the primary reasons when I go and knock on a door whenever the election might be, a major issue is that of taxation. People do not mind having to pay their taxes. What is important, Mr. Chairperson, is that those taxes and the level of taxation is fair. This government, over the years, has not demonstrated at all a sense of fairness in the way in which it is collecting its taxes, and that is a primary reason why I could not vote for this particular budget.

I do take some pride in that fact, Mr. Chairperson, because I do believe it is important to provide alternative solutions to what it is the government is doing. One of the issues that I believe that the government needs to be much more proactive on is the property tax issue. My question to the Premier is: how would the Premier explain to my constituents and to the constituents of Manitoba why over the years this government has constantly ignored the issue of overreliance of funding education on our property tax? Why over the years this government has ignored the need to address and alleviate property tax relief? Its priority tends to be personal income tax and there is some validity to reducing provincial income tax, but it is negligent, I believe, to ignore the property tax. I would be interested in knowing the Premier's response to that.

Mr. Filmon: Well, Mr. Chairman, there is a whole variety of issues surrounding that and one is, of course, responsibility for raising the money should vest with those who make the decisions on how to spend the money. Certainly in the case of municipal governments, the cities, towns, villages and municipalities make decisions on how they are going to spend their money. This government over the last decade has probably been more generous in its transfers to municipal governments than any other province in Canada. I would venture that that is able to be supported by everything that we have done.

Principally, of course, because we have provincial-municipal tax-sharing arrangements which increases dramatically, and this year alone it increased in its transfers to the municipalities by $71 million, I am informed. More particularly, large increases onto the municipalities from VLT revenues and we are the only province that still gives a portion of VLT revenues to the municipal governments. This has resulted in very significant increases during the period of time over the last five years most provinces in Canada have dramatically reduced their transfers to the municipal governments. More particularly in the area of education, it is not uncommon for some portion of the burden of school costs to be taken off the property tax. I may be wrong. I had done some research for the debate that I had at the MAST convention and I thought that every province still had some portion. But it ranges, and in Saskatchewan next door, 60 percent comes off the property tax. Now, it is not all through a special levy at the local level. In many cases, the province does as we do with our Education Support Levy, takes it off all the properties across the province, puts it through a kind of equalization-type exercise, and then distributes it to the various school boards.

If you really look at it, there is a lot of discussion about how much has changed in the last while. In 1981, the provincial government from its general revenues contributed to the school divisions of the province 54 percent of all of their costs. By 1988, when we took office, that had slipped to 52 percent and now it sits at just over 49 percent. So essentially it has varied a little bit, but it has remained around 50 percent being taken from the general revenues.

Where there was a big shift was that, in the days of the New Democratic government of the '80s, they kept taking more and more off the property tax through increasing the ESL over that period of six and a half years. We have not increased the ESL. In fact, it is virtually at the same level that it was 11 years ago, but, obviously, local school boards, through their special levies, have continued to increase their local levies.

This does a number things. I mean, the member opposite probably knows, if he has done the research, that there is quite a considerable variance in the local mill rates, and it obviously reflects either the pressures that school boards feel at the local level or the priorities that they have chosen at the local level. There are many, many programs, from early childhood education to before- and after-school programs, to food support programs, to all sorts of areas in which there have been decisions made at the local level to do something special through the school system. This means that there really is a reason why we have local school boards to make local judgments and local priority choices. That, to me, is why we have the whole business of locally elected school boards; it is to make those kinds of judgments.

* (1620)

In the time when we were getting massive reductions in transfer payments from Ottawa, the Liberal government in Ottawa, we tried as much as we could to live within our means. We do not believe you should spend money that you do not have. So, as a result of all of that, we tried to apply as much discipline as we could to our spending in all areas of government, including our transfers to the various different areas of expenditure over which we have no direct control, but we are a major contributing partner, including education.

In that area, many, many school boards across the province chose to supplement what they perceived to be a lack of funding transfers from us by increasing local levies very substantially. That has taken place. They obviously have to take some responsibility for those decisions, and we as a province obviously take responsibility for the decisions that we made. In the end, there has to be some local responsibility. You just take areas that are constantly a source of discussion, complaint and conflict, such as municipal taxes within the city of Winnipeg. You know, when you start to examine this, that the City of Winnipeg's pay rates are higher than the pay rates for comparable positions for either the provincial government or the federal government or for any Crown corporation. They are the highest of all the public service areas of Manitoba, and you have to say: do we take responsibility for that as a province? Well, obviously, we do not and we should not, and we have to keep that principle in mind that local decision makers, locally elected decision makers have to take responsibility for their local decisions to a great extent.

So to just simply say that it is all the fault of the provincial government I do not think is fair or valid. It begs the question as to how we address this. I mean, if the province is going to take over all the funding, then obviously the debate should ensue as to whether or not you have other people who make the decisions as to how to spend it. That is the case with regional health authorities, where they are solely appointed by the province in recognition that the province is the sole funder.

Mr. Lamoureux: I do want to spend some time on this particular issue, and I will tell you why. It has been an issue for me virtually since I have been elected. I like to believe that I have been somewhat successful in terms of influencing our party's position on this issue. That is going to come out in due course, but suffice to say for now a part of that platform is going to see the provincial levy that the province puts on the residential property tax will be proposed to disappear. We would be, in fact, committed to getting rid of that residential provincial levy on the education property tax. I say that because at the end of the discussion on this, I would like to think that the Premier, who has influence from within his own party obviously and in the election platform, ideally I would like to hear him say something today on this very important issue.

I want to address it in a different way. If you happen to live in, let us say, Tyndall Park in a house of a value of approximately $80,000, very reasonable, very realistic, then you compare that house. You take a house of the same value and you put it into a St. James School Division, as opposed to a Winnipeg School Division No.1, the same market value of, let us say, $80,000. The person that happens to live in Tyndall Park is going to have to pay, I can assure the Premier, at least $300 net only because they happen to be in Winnipeg School Division No. 1. Well, in the past the arguments would be, well, look, you have a school division, they want to provide the services, and so forth.

Well, you know, that is a simple answer, but it is not a fair answer. I would argue that it is a poor answer for the government to be giving. Why? Because, Mr. Chairperson, if you take a look at the demands for, let us say, a Winnipeg School Division No. 1 and you compare it to the demands of a St. James School Division, you will find that it is actually quite different. For example, you take a look at special needs. This government wiped out the special needs Level I, where it was tied to individual students. Instead, what they said is that instead of tying it to an individual student, what we will do is we will spread it across the board, let us say, 5 percent. As a result of that, whether you are School Division No. 1 or St. James or whatever other school division, it is assumed that you have the same number per capita, that is, of special I children in your area.

Well, that is not true. We know that that is not the case; that there is a higher percentage of special needs children in some school divisions compared to other. Yet, they all get the same percentage. Then you take a look at special needs II or special needs III. We finance, through provincial Department of Education, only a percentage of the need of resources that are necessary in order to accommodate special needs II, special needs III.

That is just one example of how the costs for Winnipeg School Division No. 1 are higher than, let us say, another school division. Yet the constituent that I happen to represent that lives in that $80,000 home is having to pay at least $300 more net because he or she happens to live in Tyndall Park. I believe that we are doing an injustice by not addressing this issue. It goes beyond just me, the MLA for Inkster. I understand that even the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) has homes that live in Winnipeg School Division No. 1. What shocks me is we have individuals like the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) who I have yet to hear raise that issue, the question of taxation fairness. I find it disgraceful the way in which we expect Winnipeg 1 residents having to pay an unfair percentage of education dollars compared to others in the province.

I look to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to acknowledge the fact that the resident in Tyndall Park is paying more than their fair share today as a result, compared to someone in the St. James School Division or the Transcona School Division, not because of just the school division but because there are other inequities that need to be addressed. That is what I appeal to the Premier to recognize that there is significant room for improvement, and by recognizing that, give us reason to believe that the government, after 11 years, is prepared to attempt to address that issue.

Mr. Filmon: Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate a number of things about the member's questions and concerns, and I want to just say not the least of which is raising a very interesting topic.

* (1630)

First and foremost, the one thing that I do not appreciate about the Liberal position is that they somehow let people believe that they will eliminate this tax or massively reduce this tax on property, without telling them that in order to do so, they have to raise other taxes. There is only one taxpayer. Basically, depending on how far they go with it–I mean, if it is just taking off the ESL, they are going to have to raise at least I think it is one and a half points on the sales tax or 5 points on the personal income tax rate.

Now, if you say to people we are going to have to put your sales tax up to 8 percent, then that is being honest, or if you say we are going to have to raise your personal income tax rates by 5 percent, that is being honest. But just to tell them you are going to take down the ESL on residential property tax without telling them the consequences, I do not think that is a very fair thing to do. So we will discuss that, obviously, on the campaign trail, and we will talk about whether or not the public really fully appreciates the Liberal position of raising taxes, in effect, in order to do something else for them. That is one thing.

The second thing, of course, is this whole issue of inequities. You know, the one thing about the property tax is that it is an ad valorem tax. It is not reflective of what services you get out of the system. It is based on taking taxes away in proportion to your perceived ability to pay. Of course, that is where you run into difficulty, is perceptions are not always realities.

I have been going door to door a great deal in the last number of weeks in a variety of different parts of the city and the province. I have not been in the member's area yet, but perhaps I will get a chance in the next little while. But I get people talking to me about all sorts of inequities in the property tax system.

You get the case of retired seniors who say: Why is any portion of my property tax going to pay for education because my kids are already grown up and they no longer use the system? Or you get some who say: I am single and I have no kids. Why should any portion of my property tax go to pay for education? Then there is the situation between different communities. The member opposite talks about the inequity between Winnipeg No. 1 and St. James. Well, how does he feel about a homeowner in Tuxedo who pays $10,000 in property tax versus one in the inner city of Winnipeg who pays $350 in property tax and gets the same service, the same service? He gets garbage picked up once a week; he gets the streets cleaned once a month in the summer; he gets snow removed when it snows, but he does not get any more service. And so he says: what a terrible inequity for me to have to pay all this money for the education costs or the municipal costs and I get no more service than the homeowner in the inner city or the homeowner in Inkster.

Once you get on to that, it is a very slippery slope of trying to make equity out of taxation. So the real principle is that those essentially who have more pay more. So those who have bigger, more valuable homes pay more; those who earn more pay more; those who spend more pay more. That is really how most of our taxes are set up. To suggest to somebody the simplistic answer that the easy way to get around it is to take it off the property, you have got to also give them the other side of the coin, which is, oh, by the way, we are going to raise your sales tax by 1 percent or we are going to raise your personal income taxes by 5 percent in order to do that. Then I think you have a very different picture to discuss.

That is why I think it is the sort of thing that is appropriate to be looked at by something like the Lower Tax Commission because they then will be able to tell people honestly, not just from a political standpoint, that if you take it off here, you have to put it back there, because we still need that amount of money in order to run our schools and our municipal governments.

Mr. Lamoureux: I do not have the confidence that the Premier has in the Lower Tax Commission, quite frankly. When the Premier addressed it, he said: well, you take a house here in Tuxedo in which they pay $10,000 a year compared to an inner-city home where they might pay $350 a year. He is missing one very valuable point, and that is that the house in Tuxedo and the value of that particular house and lot, Mr. Chairperson, is substantially more than the value of the house and lot in Point Douglas or in the inner city. What I am asking the Premier to acknowledge is houses and lots, property of equal value, in different areas of the city. That is what I am asking him to recognize.

I put the question very specific to the Premier: does the Premier acknowledge that a house of $80,000 in Tyndall Park compared to a house of $80,000 value in St. James, that the house in Tyndall Park is paying substantially more, "substantially" being defined as approximately $300 more in property tax because it is in Winnipeg School Division No. 1. Just acknowledge that.

Mr. Filmon: I have not got any more information in front of me, but I will take the member's word for it, but reality is that the two school boards would argue that they give different levels of services. I have heard Winnipeg No.1 talk about them doing their breakfast programs and their nursery schools, their IB programs and all those different things. I live in an area that does not have an International Baccalaureate program in any of its schools, Assiniboine South. They have chosen not to, recognizing that students from that division may then go by bus to another division where there is an International Baccalaureate program, but they argue they are giving what they think is the appropriate level of services to the people in our area. Winnipeg No. 1 will boast about the fact that they are giving far more services than any other division in the province, and that is why the difference is, not because of any taxation adjustments that we are making. It is a choice as to what they put into the mix of services that they offer and therefore how much they get off the levy, the local levy for education

Mr. Lamoureux: The Premier is, in part, quite wrong in his assertion. I use the example of special needs. Five percent, your government has said, 5 percent, no matter where in the province, a school division is going to get, per capita. I would argue that Winnipeg 1 per capita has far more special needs Level I. Special needs II, the amount of resources that the province provides, does not come nowhere near close to the actual cost of providing special II needs, and the same thing for special III, so what I am saying to the Premier is that, yes, in part there are different services that school divisions do provide. Sometimes it is an advantage, sometimes it is a disadvantage, and I will acknowledge that, but in turn I would look to the Premier to also acknowledge that many of those inequities, like the special needs, cause the school division to have to have more money as a result. Other school divisions would not necessarily need it.

If there is a higher demand for breakfast programs, because I am sure the Premier would acknowledge or agree that it is pretty tough to learn on an empty stomach. Everyone has said that before. If you have to provide nutritional programs, and we are all better off as a result of providing those programs, society is better off by having those programs, well, why then should it be just Winnipeg 1 taxpayers have to foot a higher percentage of the bill?

* (1640)

So, I am not looking for the Premier to resolve the problem tomorrow. What I am looking for the Premier to do is show some acknowledgment that the problem does exist. That is what I am hoping to get from the Premier.

Mr. Filmon: I know that there are different challenges and different needs in every area of our public schools in this province. There are concentrations of specific issues that are more prevalent in some areas than others.

I know, for instance, that one of our biggest difficulties and challenges is meeting the special needs of our aboriginal populations that have moved off the reserves and into the cities and towns and villages and are concentrated in particular areas. Many of the challenges that we face in ensuring that they are prepared for learning, that they get the supports that they need, make them special needs students in many cases that we are dealing with.

I also know that probably a disproportionate share of those who need English as a second language end up being in the city of Winnipeg School Division No. 1. In both those cases, the federal Liberal government has massively reduced its funding to our province. We no longer get support for aboriginal peoples living off reserve for any of their social needs. That used to be a 100 percent responsibility of the federal government for their health, their education, their social services. Now, we only get the standard transfers through the CHST on a per capita basis.

Our estimate is $30 million a year that we are short of funding that we used to get for those people who now are no longer being paid for by the federal government for their social service needs. That is a lot of money, and if we got more from the federal government, we might be able to do more to address those specific things. ESL funding has been dramatically reduced by this federal Liberal government, used to put in a lot more money to address those needs. The government does not anymore, so if the member opposite wants to really help out in this situation, I would say he should pick up the phone. He should talk to his colleagues in Ottawa, and tell them that the Manitoba government could do and would like to do more for the people in his area by way of these special needs programming areas, whether they be ESL or whether they be services for those who are now living off reserve and in our inner city communities. With their help we could do a much better job.

Mr. Lamoureux: Not to disappoint the Premier, I can assure the Premier that I do considerable lobbying of my federal counterparts. There are a number of areas which I disagree with, and I continue to lobby. Having said that, I think that it could be a lot worse in Ottawa. It is the party which I choose to support. I do believe that they are a lot better than the alternatives. I say that because I want to put that behind. I want to focus more so on what this government can in fact be doing. Even if the feds continue to cut back, or I should not say continue to cut back, if the feds did cut back in the future or if they add more money in the future, whatever it is that they decide to do we will either criticize or we will applaud.

What I am looking for is something which I can applaud this provincial government on dealing with the property tax issue. I do not believe the government has done anything over 11 years to try to address that issue, and it surprises me to the degree in which that issue has been marginalized in this Chamber, because I do not see it getting the type of attention and debate that it should be given. I trust and because at time I can appreciate the sensitivity to time, I am going to move on to a different issue, but suffice to say, I look to the Premier to acknowledge that education. He made reference to it in terms of the senior that says, I should not have to pay education, to the single individual that says, I do not have any kids, I should not have to pay education.

Much like health care, we all benefit by having a quality education, public educational system. We all benefit by having a publicly financed health care system. What we are really asking all Manitobans to do is to pay their fair share of taxation in financing those two public services in particular, at least from my point of view.

On the health care issue, it comes out of general revenues. I would like ultimately to see at the very least stopping the reliance of funding more of public education on property tax, at the very least stop that and let us try to turn it around so that we see more of the financing of public education through general revenues. That is ultimately I think the very least a provincial government can do. This government, even with constrictions coming in from Ottawa, does have the ability to do. What they also can do is they can ensure that there is a higher sense of fairness. This government can do that. It does not matter what Ottawa does. They can either make it harder or easier no doubt in terms of the amount of dollars that they kick in, but this government has within its own jurisdiction the ability to make it more fair. We look to the Premier to do just that.

I commented on heath care. Health care is indeed a critical issue. It is on the top of minds of every Manitoban. I know it has been a No. 1 concern of the constituents that I have represented more consistently than any other issue. Again, I will go back to my surveys. If I said back in 1990, and again you are talking well in excess of 550-600-700 homes depending on the year. We have had it as high as 900, but in 1990 I had a question that went: do you feel that the best health care possible is available to you? Mr. Chairperson, 55.4 percent said yes back in 1990; 34.4 percent said no.

You can word a question so that it has an impact on the outcome of the answer, but what I find interesting is, I like to throw the same questions in every so often. So that was the results of 1990. In 1996, the same question: do you feel that the best health care possible is available to you? Mr. Chairperson, 38 percent said yes; 56 percent said no. That is a significant difference. To me what it clearly demonstrates is that the government has been unable to be able to communicate, unable to be able to manage the need for health care reform or changes. One of the differences, I would articulate, between us and the New Democrats is that we acknowledge that, yes, there is a need for change, but at the same time, we will acknowledge that it is a question of how you manage that change.

I believe that the provincial government has not been successful in managing that change. The only area, over the years, in which I have seen the government open was the former Minister of Health, now Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae), when we had the battle for the save the Seven Oaks Hospital. The government appeared to be somewhat open minded. I applaud the government in terms of being able to recognize the future role of Seven Oaks in ensuring that it was not converted, because it would have been a mistake, but, you know, that is more the exception.

* (1650)

One other thing that comes to mind, you cannot say I cannot give government credit when it does do some things that are done well, is the Health Links line. The Health Links line at one time had limited hours of operation. Today it is 24 hours, seven days a week, there is a 1-800 phone number. Well, these are things in which again we, in opposition, called upon the government to do. Whether it had any impact whatsoever on the government, the bottom line is that that Health Links line is there today for Manitobans. We think that that is a positive.

What has been more often than not portrayed of this government through the years is one of mismanagement of health care. The biggest one, of course, was probably the Connie Curran era of where we had four point, I believe, five million dollars a number of years ago.

Today there is a huge question mark on our foods being served in our hospital, Madam Chairperson. You find that the criticism is abound. There are a lot of people that are calling into question not only the quality of the food, and I guess in part the jury is still out on the quality of the food, but the way in which this whole thing is being managed in terms of being put into place, where you have huge amounts of public dollars being expended in order to ensure that there is some viability to that particular program from the Health Sciences Centre, and the Health Sciences Centre has not even received any of this so-called better quality food.

You know, unfortunately I have had to visit the hospital a lot more than I would have liked, but you get a better assessment of some of the problems when you are in there on a regular basis. I think that there is an all-time low in terms of the morale inside our hospitals today. That is only one component, but that is probably your most important component in health care, and the government is losing the battle big time on that particular issue.

In talking with nurses or other health care providers, there is no sense that the government respects the work that they put in. A good example of that was the paramedics issue. You know, we forced through legislation on the paramedics, which is absolutely unnecessary. We did not need to give it Royal Assent, but the government chose to do that, and it was supported by the NDP, which is absolutely amazing when they claim to be the party for the union. The union elite, possibly, but not for the union membership.

The government could have demonstrated very clearly a vote of confidence for this part of our health care workers but chose to give it the Royal Assent when it was absolutely not necessary, and I say not necessary because now they are under mediation. If we have a contract that includes binding arbitration, which is fairly likely I would think, because you have the fire and you have the police service with the binding arbitration, well, then, that legislation that we gave Royal Assent to is completely redundant. It should be withdrawn because it would not be needed.

So then you start questioning, well, why our health care workers feel a sense of betrayal. Well, you only need to look at some of the actions. There has to be a higher sense of fair play within our health care professionals, that the only way in which we are going to manage the type of change that is necessary on health care is that we have to start working with our stakeholders. This is something which I think is important for this government to take action on. It is something which we are committed to doing, working with the stakeholders in health care in order to manage the changes that are necessary.

I look to the Premier and ask the Premier to acknowledge that that is absolutely critical for us to be successful in managing health care change, which is necessary, that we have to start extending ourselves that even go beyond just the health care worker. The government, a number of years ago, had these huge public forums on education in which there were parents and teachers, different stakeholders that attended, and the government sought to get some feedback from it. I cannot recall offhand if they had anything of that nature with health care. I am sure the Premier will correct me if I am wrong. I am looking to the Premier to show stronger leadership in addressing the important issue of health care.

The Leader of the Liberal Party has made that commitment. He has clearly indicated that he would personally take on the responsibility of health care himself as Premier or whatever role that the electorate ultimately decide to give him after the next election. That is the type of leadership that I think is necessary in dealing with this critical issue which is so important to so many Manitobans. I would ask the Premier to respond.

Mr. Filmon: I have said on numerous occasions that the real priorities of a government are not where it places its rhetoric but where it places its major funding. Clearly at 35.5 percent of the budget, health care is the No. 1 issue with this government, has been ever since we have been in office. Since we have been in office, we have increased spending in government on health care by over $800 million per year, from $1.3 billion a year in 1988 to $2.1 billion this year. That is more than 50 cents out of every new dollar spent has gone into health care.

Now, I find it ironic that the member opposite is speaking on behalf of Jon Gerrard, his leader, who is the biggest problem with health care in Manitoba because he sat at the table as a federal cabinet minister when they approved cuts in transfers to Manitoba that amounted to ultimately over $260 million a year to go to health care. That has been the biggest challenge that this government has had to face to keep up funding for a system that needs massive, massive increased amounts every year as it adopts new technology, as it builds more personal care beds, as it expands support services to seniors, Meals on Wheels, home care, all those things that are the sign of an aging population that is facing every province in Canada. He blithely cut the transfer payments from Ottawa to Manitoba and then now has the audacity to come back as Leader of the Liberal Party and say we have to do more in health care. It is unbelievable. For the member opposite to even raise this issue I think must be a bit of an embarrassment, but I guess he is trying to show loyalty to his Leader because frankly it is an issue which I think the Liberal Party has a very dismal record here in this province.

We on the other hand have made it our No. 1 priority, and it has increased in priority. It has gone from being in the low 30 percent of the budget to 35.5 percent. It has had an increase of over $800 million a year over an 11-year period which under circumstances is a massive increase in funding, and we have attempted to manage the system at a time when it is in tremendous change from all areas. A huge, huge change is required as the population ages and as the new investments have to be made. Huge, huge changes have to be made to adapt to and adopt new technologies and make the best use of them.

I think if you look at the press clippings and the media reports from across Canada, this government has faired better than most provinces in Canada in adapting to that change and managing to keep the system going in a very, very positive way throughout this. Now it has not met the expectations and needs of everybody, but that would be impossible in this time of massive change.

* (1700)

Mr. Lamoureux: I can recall back in '88, '89, '90, when there was a lot of discussion in terms of–you know, if the federal government does not change the formula that there is going to be no cash coming to finance health care in the province of Manitoba. Well, the same Jon Gerrard that the Premier criticized for cutting back on health care is the individual that sat around the cabinet table that ensured indefinitely that Manitoba will continue to receive health care dollars. They established a floor. There has been reinvestment in terms of health care dollars coming in from Ottawa, so as I indicated, the Premier is equally at times full of rhetoric in order to justify the lack of action in his government's responsibility.

The greatest threat to health care today is not necessarily the dollar bill as much as it is of failing to recognize and to accomplish the changes that are necessary. That is really the greatest threat to health care. The money obviously is critically important, but would not the Premier agree that the larger responsibility for ensuring health care for Manitobans is in fact his and his government today, because they happen to have the majority of seats inside the Chamber?

They are the ones that have to take ultimately the responsibility for the health care when we have seen over the years more and more Manitobans lose confidence in what is happening in health care as opposed to pointing the finger. I think the Premier needs to possibly look in the mirror. I would ask for the Premier to acknowledge that the greatest threat to health care today is in fact how we manage that change, and of course, recognizing the importance of dollars also.

Mr. Chairperson, again, last year during the Estimates, I had the opportunity to have some discussions in terms of my personal thoughts and the party's position in regard to health care and the way in which we receive money and the Premier's opinions on cash versus tax points and so forth. Suffice it to say that what I would like to able to do is to move on to another issue or give the Premier, if he wants, an opportunity just to comment on the words I just put on the record, otherwise I will continue on with my other issue. I shall continue on.

Mr. Chairperson, there was an issue that I brought up on Thursday, and we brought it up again I guess it would be more informally–actually I did not bring it up. It was discussed today in ministerial comments, and it was in regard to the floods that we have had. You know, back in the flood of the century, there was a crop-seeding program that had come out which at least on the surface appeared to meet most of the needs of the people who were affected. The province has come up with a crop-seeding program that allows that subsidy for individuals who go and hire out someone to come and plant seeds.

What I am looking for from the Premier, and I attempted to do it on Thursday, is to get the Premier to acknowledge that there is a big difference between the Red River Floodway, the flooding that occurred there, and the flooding that we are seeing in the southwest in terms of landscape, the rolling hills and so forth. That, yes, there is a good percentage of that land that is quite seedable and farmers are doing what they can to seed that land, but unless they are prepared to bring outsiders in to assist, there is no assistance, from what I understand, for the farmer who is able to go out and plant some seed to the same degree as if they hired someone to bring in their machinery to plant the seeds.

I say that because I look to the Premier to acknowledge that the difference is substantial in terms of costs. The costs of planting seeds in that area, because of the more hilly formations, are considerably more. I have had discussions with one local farmer out in that area, in particular, who indicated that it is very difficult for the farmers to ensure that seeds are, in fact, being planted, that they are doing what they can, but the government could go a long way in helping out if, in fact, they could acknowledge the difference in terms of the additional costs as a result of being on a hilly landscape as opposed to a flood plain.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, the circumstances between the flood of the century on the Red River in 1997 and this year's very wet, saturated conditions that are as a result of a very much higher than normal precipitation level in the fall of last year, a slightly above-average snowfall during the winter and then a massively above-average rainfall this spring are that huge, huge tracts of land throughout the southern part of the province–and it covers a much wider area than most people believe because there are some pockets down in the southeast corner of the province, there are huge areas in the southwest, and then it goes all the way up into the Grandview, Gilbert Plains area and around Minnedosa and Neepawa. It was saturated ground that did not allow the farmers to get on to seed, so there were vastly different circumstances.

The principle of it is, though, in both cases we came up to the deadline for crop insurance or for practical seeding purposes that allowed enough frost-free days to guarantee or ensure a crop could be grown. The circumstances are identical in that in order to maximize the use of that very, very short window, we had five days of consecutive good weather this week, and we anticipated that if we could get any number of consecutive days of good weather, all of a sudden ground that had been saturated for weeks on end might dry out enough to get people on the land and with a tremendous effort of putting all of the equipment available at their disposal, we might be able to seed many areas that otherwise would not get there with the available equipment and manpower of one individual farmer. It was such a logical, reasonable thing to do. It was done in the case of the Red River Valley flood of 1997. It had tremendous impact. Probably in the last few days before the deadlines, hundreds of thousands of acres were seeded.

This year it appears, because my latest information which I was handed just before going into Question Period today, is that, whereas 10 days ago when I was out in that area there were three million acres unseeded, we are down today to perhaps about 750,000 acres. So the effort that we made in coming up with the custom seeding proposal has probably been well worth it in terms of the massive amount that it will save the taxpayers through either AIDA or any other program.

So we are saying it was absolutely a good idea in 1997. It is still a good idea in 1999 for those for whom it was needed, and I cannot imagine why the member opposite would try and argue that there are differences and why he should want to help the federal government get out from under an obligation here. I think the federal government should be putting the money in to treat the farmers of southern and western Manitoba in exactly the same way as they treated the farmers of the Red River Valley in 1997.

Mr. Lamoureux: I acknowledge that the program itself, the custom seeding benefit program, is a very positive program, but the one the government has in place does need some more flexibility. I was very specific where that flexibility should be, and I ask the Premier to correct me if I am wrong. From what I understand, if a farmer has a hilly property in which he or she wants to be able to seed and they have the machinery in which they can do that, if they do it, as I am sure they will, there is an additional cost because they are not doing the valley portion. So they are driving along the tops type thing. That is the way in which it was explained to me. Now, in some cases, if the province was to assist in that area, we would see even more of that 750,000 that is still not seeded today. I trust that number is actually going to go down over the next couple of days still because I think it is the 28th that is the final cutoff. I am not 100 percent sure. I believe it is around the 28th.

* (1710)

But it seems to me that, given the time sensitivity of this particular issue, why would the Premier not, at the very least, look into the possibility of having the program a little bit more flexible that would at the very least take this into consideration, whether it is a $5-an-acre subsidy–from what I understand, what you are really talking about is that if you wanted to seed it, get people to come in to do it, this way you get the subsidy. If you try to do it yourself, there is no subsidy, at least to the same degree if you bring someone in. That is where I think the Premier at least should give some consideration to having some flexibility.

Mr. Filmon: I will certainly have the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) look at it, but the real issue is why the federal government has not agreed to put the money in for this custom seeding program when they did it in the Red River Valley. Why are they treating Manitobans differently in different areas of the province? Why are they not as sympathetic today as they were in 1997 when in fact the concern and the economic loss is going to be much greater in this year than it was in 1997, because in 1997 there was $350-million worth of damage. But it was followed by six months to a year of $350 million of reconstruction in which all of the damages were repaired, no economic loss essentially. In fact, all but 1,800 acres were seeded.

This time, we are going to have–and maybe we are lucky, maybe it will get down to a half million acres, but it is still going to be a substantial amount of farmland unseeded, and that is a loss of the entire income from that which cannot be replaced by anything else because it is a total economic loss to the province's GDP which then does not flow to the merchants and business people in the towns and villages which is a total loss. We have had no response from the federal government in Ottawa saying that they are willing to put the money into this custom seeding, even though we know that by having announced it last week we probably saved ourselves hundreds of thousands of acres that might have otherwise gone unseeded.

Why would the member not go and talk to the Liberal government and Mr. Vanclief? Why would he not say, John Gerrard, you stay on that phone until you get an answer from Ottawa? Why does he come here and start to pick away at whether or not the program covers all possible needs or is fair to every single possible farmer? It has done a very good job and will continue to do a good job for most farmers, but it cannot possibly solve all particular issues, nor could we be flexible enough to say this person is going to get $10 an acre, this person because it will cost more gas to go on the hills instead of the valleys will get $10.65 an acre, this person here probably has a few extra little problems and so he will get $10.72 an acre. I mean, you cannot do that. You have to go and try and help the most people that you possibly can with the program, and that is what I believe this custom seeding proposal has done. What we really need is the federal government to come in and say, okay, we are going to pay for it like we did in the Red River Valley, and that is what I would urge him to pursue.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I do know that if I had the same sort of resources as the Premier's Office has or the Leader of the official opposition's office has, no doubt there would be many different initiatives that I would personally be able to get more involved with. We have to recognize that there is a big difference between the Flood of the Century in the flooding, as the Premier himself has pointed out, a huge, huge difference that we see this year. It is a question of flexibility, as I pointed out. I will save that lobbying for, or I will let our Leader and others continue with the lobbying that is most appropriate with our federal cousins.

Having said that, the nice thing that I heard the Premier say is that he would be prepared to bring it up with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns). We do, in fact, appreciate the gesture and hope that the Premier does see the merits of having a little bit more flexibility on that particular program.

Having said that, I wanted to move on to another topic area, some would say a slice possibly. [interjection] I will try and finish by six. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson, I would like to think that I am not necessarily defending the federal government, even though it seems far too often I am raising the issue of the federal government.

But having said that, I wanted to comment on the Monnin commission. There is a bit of a difference, I guess, again between the official opposition and us in terms of the frequency of raising this particular issue. We find that it is pretty tough to believe, quite frankly, that you could have so many people involved, so many people who sit around the Premier and the Premier not to be aware of it.

I know, myself, I have had the fortune of sitting, at least at times, on an election readiness committee and got as far as it did, but when it was brought up at the beginning of the session, Mr. Chairperson, we had decided after considerable discussion that the best way to deal with this particular issue was to ensure that during the election time Manitobans, as much as possible, are aware of what in fact had taken place and let the voters ultimately determine the fate of this particular issue. We find it just too incredible to believe, and we look forward ultimately to the voters dealing with this particular issue.

Having said that, there is another issue that I was wanting to bring up. It deals with ethical behaviour, and it has only been given more attention because of the political nature of it. That is what has happened over in the Seven Oaks School Division. Mr. Chairperson, as opposed to constantly bringing it up in Question Period, again, we have made the decision to minimize that, primarily because of the political posturing, if I could use that word, done during Question Period, but we do feel that it is a very important issue.

In fact, on Thursday I brought it up with the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae). The Minister of Education had indicated that he was going to be receiving the report. We found out today that he does in fact have the report. He has actually read through the report. Our position on this issue is to try to get an independent investigation into it, and what I am looking for the Premier to acknowledge is an independent investigation. I guess the government to date has been saying: well, they want to ensure that there is due process, and there might be some merit for that particular argument. I used the word "might" somewhat carefully, I guess.

* (1720)

The issue, as we see it, is fairly clear, and we wanted to see the government take some sort of action on two fronts. One is integrity: what has been called into question is the integrity of the standard exams, standard exams in which this government has boasted on countless occasions of having. I believe that all three political parties–actually I sat on OB talk line and all three parties–I was on CJOB with the Education critic and the Minister of Education in which we talked about the standard exams; it was agreed by all parties in the Chamber that the standard exams are a positive thing. There are some differential opinions on the way in which the government is doing it; for example, we do not care for the Grade 3 standard exams. We believe the government is wrong by having standard exams at the Grade 3 level, but all parties support having standard exams. Having said the amount of boasting this government has done and the amount of support that standard exams have inside this Chamber, one has to be very cognizant of the fact that there has been a breach of security, but, more importantly, of how the government has dealt with that breach of security.

I believe that it calls into question the integrity of the standard exams. It sends so many negative messages, and months have gone by. The Monnin inquiry took nine months. We are well past nine months on the breach of a standard exam. It is the integrity of those standard exams which causes us great concern.

The second point is what has happened to the individual. Perception is very important. The health and well-being of this individual has been impacted negatively. The reputation of this individual has been negatively impacted. As I indicated, it is a question of perception, especially when you talk about one's reputation. If in fact the individual is demoted for whatever reasons that had nothing to do with the standards exams, well, that has not come out. The individuals around there, the teachers that are around, the teachers I met with, no doubt in my mind feel that he was demoted because of following a provincial directive, your government that said that he had to report the incident. That is the reason why he was demoted. That was the general feeling from the group of teachers that I met with from that school. So it is the two issues, the integrity of the standards exams, and the individual.

Now we know the government has a report. What I am looking for from the Premier today is a commitment that this government will not conduct an internal investigation of what took place. The reason I say I want that commitment from the Premier is because of the individuals involved. I believe, given the political nature of what we have before us that it would be unjust and unfair for an internal investigation to be conducted from this government. The simple reasoning for that is because the principal in question is the campaign chair, from what I understand, of the New Democratic Party. Ultimately the individual who brought forward the report, and I have not seen the report, is very closely affiliated with the New Democratic Party.

I can say MLAs from all sides, New Democrats and Tories, have supported me in making some of these inquiries that I have been making, because it is an issue that does need to be dealt with, but it has to be dealt with appropriately. What I see is the government is prepared to address it today for the wrong reasons. It is being politically motivated because they see some blood on this issue, and they are prepared to go to the jugular in an attempt to embarrass the New Democrats. I do not have any problem with embarrassing the New Democrats myself, personally, but I have to acknowledge that we need to ensure that there is not only real justice served but perceived justice served in dealing with this issue.

I have indicated the two primary reasons why it needs to be addressed. I am now asking for the Premier to acknowledge, given the political nature, that if this government does not accept the report submitted by Seven Oaks, and I do not know what the report says, but if it does not accept that report, that under no circumstances will there be an internal review by this government, that it will in fact be an independent investigation as to what actually occurred.

Mr. Filmon: That is not a commitment that I could make without discussion with the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. McCrae). I have not seen the report. I am not aware of what it says, what it recommends, or what the thinking is of the Minister of Education and Training on the issue. So I could not make any comment on it at this time.

Mr. Lamoureux: I look to the Premier to acknowledge then that the political background and the political reality of the situation that we have before us is of such a nature that it would be inappropriate for the Department of Education to have an investigation. Does he not see the conflict there? Will he acknowledge that there is a conflict, that the Department of Education is not in a position in which it can clearly investigate this particular issue?

Mr. Filmon: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not see that. So I guess I will have to have time to investigate further.

Mr. Doer: I understand today that in conversations with our Agriculture critic that the federal minister stated that Manitoba has not applied for the federal disaster assistance program as of Friday. As I understand it, the government sent the letters last June 9 to the federal government. I guess we have a serious issue here if the federal Minister Vanclief was saying we have not applied. Can the minister confirm that the letters he tabled in the House were sent expeditiously to the federal government? Our sources said that they did receive them in Ottawa, in fact before I asked the government the question. I just do not know what is going on here. The member for Inkster was raising a lot of questions just a moment ago about issues of public policy. One would hope no matter what the issue is they start from a position of truth and honesty. I was wondering whether the federal government was telling the truth.

Mr. Filmon: I will be as charitable as I can to the federal Minister, Mr. Vanclief, because I am greatly disappointed in his statements and actions off the cuff over the last number of weeks. After he had extensive discussions with our Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Enns, about various recommendations he was making to him about flexibility with respect to AIDA and NISA, he then stated in response to a question in Ottawa that he had not received a letter from us asking us to go to action on it. When he was challenged by Mr. Enns saying, look, I spoke to you a week ago last Friday on this, he said, oh, I apologize, that is not what I meant. He said that he would correct the record.

* (1730)

Now, in this particular case, the member has letters that were sent and he also knows that officials have been in touch. Mr. Vanclief is not responsible for the disaster financial assistance program. I believe it is Mr. Collenette, the Minister of Defence and–

An Honourable Member: Eggleton.

Mr. Filmon: Eggleton, I am sorry. Eggleton, Minister of Defence. All of this has not only been done minister to minister but staff have been engaged ever since we knew there was a problem going back to the time that I visited on or about the 21st of, the 20th to the 25th of May. At that time, staff were already engaged in discussion about the applications of the disaster financial assistance program. We were assured that, like any other disaster, you do not have to declare it, and there has been confusion about declaring a state of emergency.

The reason that you declare a state of emergency is so that you can take on emergency powers, that you can evacuate people against their will, that you can enter onto private property to cut ditches, to excavate land to build dykes, all those kinds of things. None of those applied here. So we did not have to declare a state of emergency. But we did engage the department federally in understanding and knowing that there would be disaster claims, damage claims coming, everything from overland flow into basements, to replacement and repair of culverts, bridges, waterways, roadways, and so on, all those things.

This process has been ongoing now for, well, it is probably five or six weeks. So I would charitably say that Mr. Vanclief does not understand what was asked of him today, because our government and his government have been in communication over this issue for a considerable period of time.

Mr. Doer: CN, a former Crown corporation, broken word from the federal government and sold after the '93 federal election. We have lost some 6,000 jobs in railways over the last 11 years. We are quite concerned about the Transcona wheel shop being closed down and two new shops being initiated and developed in Edmonton and one in Toronto for purposes of the wheel shop operation. Has the Premier called or written Mr. Tellier to raise this issue of the 110 jobs in our community, and can the Premier advise us of the status of that situation?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, our government always seeks to preserve jobs here and to enhance job opportunities here. I know that our Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism people have had discussions and briefings on the matter. I do not know what the current status is and whether or not there has been official correspondence, but certainly we have always promoted Manitoba as a good place to do business and to maintain jobs and to enhance jobs. As a result of that, CN at various times has made investment announcements here including their major call centre for North America.

Mr. Doer: At the same time we had the call centre announced, we had the announcement of the traffic control section of the CN being transferred from Winnipeg to Edmonton. [interjection] The western headquarters of traffic control. The other situation, the Premier has pointed out they brought in a locomotive fuel tax reduction in 1993 as a way of keeping jobs here in Manitoba, jobs and repairs in Manitoba, so will the Premier remind Mr. Tellier of this reduction and therefore the expectation that jobs would be maintained in this community?

Mr. Filmon: I will be happy to ensure that either the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Praznik) or myself pursue this matter with Mr. Tellier and urge him to maintain and enhance job complement here in Manitoba.

Mr. Doer: Will the Premier specifically raise the issue of the wheel shop with Mr. Tellier, inconsistent with the reduction in fuel tax. The call centre did introduce some jobs to Manitoba, but we lost a number of others in the traffic control section of western Canada to Edmonton, and I am concerned about jobs that are being moved to other communities from Manitoba, the higher paid jobs that are being moved out of this community and its devastating impact on families. One hundred and ten families are really quite concerned right now, as one would understand. It also has a spin-off effect at Griffin Steel, and so this is a very important issue. It has an impact beyond just the direct jobs at Transcona, but a number of other spin-off jobs. It is a very, very important issue, and I would ask the Premier–it would help if he could personally phone Mr. Tellier. We would prefer the Premier to do it. Mr. Tellier, of course, is the new head of the private corporation, and I think he has to know how important these jobs are to our community.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I know that the member opposite knows that I am aggressively pursuing all job opportunities in this province. The reason that we have the greatest number of people employed in the history of this province earning almost $14 billion in wages and salaries, more than ever before in the history of this province, is because I take that seriously and so does our government. We do not reject jobs. I noted a bit of a sideswipe shot that the member took at the call centre by saying that these were high-paying jobs that he was talking about. I recall at the time I was at the opening that it was announced that the average salary for the call centre jobs was over $35,000, so these are not low-paying jobs that CN did put into our province. Having said that, we regard all job opportunities as being good things to support and maintain, and I will be happy to ensure that we make contact with CN over this issue.

While I am on my feet, I wanted to pursue the questions that the member opposite was asking with respect to what I said before the inquiry. He said that I made a commitment or a promise–I will have to investigate Hansard as to what he said about my reference to the Civil Service Commission–and I want to just, it is sometimes a good thing to ensure that one has the actual words and facts before him when one responds to these questions and that is why I, despite all of the heat that the member opposite was trying to put on this issue, waited to ensure that I have the transcript.

The NDP lawyer, Mr. Myers, in the latter part, in fact, it is on the last page of my discussion with him at the inquiry, raised the issue of Mr. Benson's participating in the PC election efforts in 1995. We were talking about the fact that he had prepared certain cheques and vouchers while he was waiting for his spouse, or his significant other, to be available to drive home.

Mr. Myers said: did it cross your mind that when he, when you, discovered that he deposited these funds back into the PC campaign fund that maybe he might have been violating The Civil Service Act?

My answer: It didn't, but it was cause for reprimand that he got involved in that process.

Mr. Myers: Right. You never considered referring this to the Civil Service Commission for inquiry?

Answer: I haven't, but certainly that is something I am prepared to do.

* (1740)

And, of course, I was prepared to do that, subject to the completion of the inquiry and all the investigations into what might have turned out. At this point, Mr. Benson had not yet appeared before the inquiry, had not given his side of the story, had not been cross-examined as to his role and so on. Obviously should that matter have resulted in us having further grounds to investigate, then it would have been appropriate to turn it over to the Civil Service Commission, but we were engaged in a full public inquiry with the broad powers that it had. Until that process was complete, it obviously was not something that required urgent action, nor did I say I would immediately do it or commit to it. I said that is something that I am prepared to do, and that is why the situation was not immediately referred to the Civil Service Commission, and as the member knows, five weeks later Mr. Benson retired from government and so the matter was academic.

Mr. Doer: I went back and refreshed my own memory with the testimony, and I have to say that the conclusions the Premier just drew to his statements in testimony are unbelievable. It was a specific question about the depositing of funds in the PC campaign fund. The question was asked whether he may have violated The Civil Service Act. Before that, the Premier obfuscated about whether Mr. Benson was covered or not covered under the act, and then of course when that was established, he proceeded to ask whether this was a violation of The Civil Service Act. One would have thought, when the Premier knew that, before he testified, he would have thought that Mr. Benson may be in violation of The Civil Service Act. "It was a cause for reprimand," right. "You never considered referring this to the Civil Service Commission for an inquiry." "I haven't, but that is certainly something that I am prepared to do," not subject to and pending this investigation, or maybe or maybe not. It is something I am prepared to do.

It is a commitment he made in testimony. It is not these new weasel words that he has added to the record now, were not the weasel words he used in the testimony in the inquiry. He said he had prepared to do it. He prepared to send it to the Civil Service Commission. No wonder we continue to have a clash. First of all, he should have done it. The Premier should have been worried that this was a breach of The Civil Service Act. It should not have even needed a prompting by our lawyer. A person who was interested in getting to the truth of the matter would have referred it to the Civil Service Commission at the first instant he was made aware of it.

Secondly, after it was raised in testimony, I certainly would have expected the Premier to have sent it to the Civil Service Commission for investigation, for inquiry under the act, and I certainly think that that was the conclusion we had when the answers were given by the Premier. But I am sure he will have some weasel words to explain why he did not. It is unfortunate. I think this is the problem all along, this kind of hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil attitude of the government and the Premier and the kind of "we will do anything to win elections" kind of culture of his friends and the appointed members of his election team, including his campaign manager. The combination of both, I think, was unfortunate. It is, as I might remind the Premier, one of the most despicable episodes in the history of democracy in this province, and the kind of these technical interpretations to do the right thing at the right time when he is confronted and give answers that imply that he is going to take some action with the Civil Service Commission, in my view, is regrettable, but I am sure the Premier will have another interpretation of this matter.

I and members who watched and listened to the testimony thought that the Premier was going to send it to the Civil Service Commission. The Premier obviously will find comfort in these words that I cannot believe it because it certainly creates the impression that he is going to take action. The Civil Service Commission should be investigating this matter. Even if he had not made a commitment, and he will argue he had not, he should have sent it to the Civil Service Commission. If you break The Civil Service Act, who is the responsible body? I would ask the Premier: who is the body that investigates breaches of The Civil Service Act? In my view, it is the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I just make the point to the member opposite, and he will say whatever he wants to say, and I know that he will spend all of his time and energy attempting to throw mud at me and my party, and that is his desire and his effort. But the question was: you never considered referring this to the Civil Service Commission for inquiry? The answer was: I have not, but certainly that is something I am prepared to do. I am prepared to consider it. I told him the reasons why I thought it would be appropriate to at least wait until the remainder of the testimony by Mr. Benson had taken place so that you did have all of the facts and both sides of the story on the record. Obviously, that never did come to pass.

Mr. Chairman, you know, the member opposite sits there holier than thou attempting to say that he is a person of huge integrity and that his party never does anything unethical. You know, we have, in the course of a court case that came out just a couple of years ago, a court case that resulted in the taxpayers of Manitoba, of course, being responsible for $2 million in a lawsuit. One of his cabinet colleagues that he sat in cabinet with, a one Mr. Bucklaschuk, who hid the information that he knew from the public about all of the things that were going wrong at the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, a fiasco that ultimately cost the taxpayers over $30 million of losses in the reinsurance scheme that was the brainchild of the New Democrats. And that was in the days, I might say, when the minister took complete responsibility and hands-on acting in the administration of the corporation. That was at the time that the New Democrats set the rates in their cabinet room. It did not go to outside authority like the Public Utilities Board. That was at the time that they were completely hands-on involved in the maladministration of all of their Crown corporations. That is why in some of those years there were massive losses in the telephone system, operating in a complete monopoly situation, massive losses in Hydro and so on.

This minister, who later then acknowledged that he had shredded the files so that nobody could even trace it, but ultimately he was caught in his own lie because the person that he fired to try and take responsibility for his actions, this minister, colleague, friend, co-worker of the Leader of the New Democratic Party. He does not say anything about the ethics of that. Completely hiding from public view information that would have been damaging to the New Democrats in their re-election efforts in the spring of 1986, was completely camouflaged, hidden from view, not only dishonestly, but unethically. He, of course, as a colleague sits there and says that everything is fine; that that is all okay, and he does not have any criticism of that action of his cabinet colleague.

He sits there holier than thou attempting to moralize to me and members on this side of the House, when he knows full well, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Monnin, in nine months of examination, concluded that not I nor any elected member of this government nor any member our party's executive or management committee had any knowledge of this vote-splitting exercise. So I just say to the member opposite he can take all the time and energy he wants on that, and people are going to judge him based on what he offers and not based on the mud that he is able to throw.

* (1750)

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairperson, I think the mud that the member opposite talks about was thrown at the government, at the political party, at the Premier's party, by former Justice Monnin. Page 16 of the inquiry, and I am sure that the Premier has memorized this line, talked about I have never encountered more liars in all my decades on the bench, and you know, it is a strong indictment of the member opposite.

Now, nobody here on this side is saying they are perfect or has not made mistakes or is not involved with people that have not made mistakes. The issue is when something happens and it is wrong, you get to the bottom of it. This Premier chose not to.

Mr. Filmon: That is exactly what we did.

Mr. Doer: He did nothing. You did nothing in '95. You set the ethical tone for this party and this campaign manager, and after it became public you did nothing.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable member to come through the Chair and not directly?

Mr. Doer: I am coming through the Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: You were saying, you, you, the Chairperson.

Mr. Doer: I do not want to accuse you of being a liar.

Mr. Chairperson: Well, you go right ahead.

Mr. Doer: I would not want to do that. I would be out of order.

Justice Monnin challenged the people that this person has as friends, the people he put in positions of trust. How do you hire somebody that changes their testimony three times as principal staff and campaign manager? I am not talking about an error that he made in his office or an error that he may have made. All of us make errors. Volunteers make errors. It is what you do when an error is made. Do you tell the truth after it or do you cover it up, you cover it up and you cover it up again? How many people in the history of this province have gone before an inquiry and have had to change their testimony once from what they said publicly on television and what they said to Elections Manitoba. So there were the comments made in the media, the comments made to Elections Manitoba, the comments made in the media again, the comments made in the first affidavit, the comments that then changed that and contradicted it in the second affidavit, and then comments in a third set of affidavits that then became evidence before the inquiry in January of 1999.

Now, who is responsible for hiring that individual? In a parliamentary democracy, it is the Premier. It is the person who hires and fires them. No responsibility for the member opposite. None.

You know, for us, it is a culture. Last Tuesday, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) made a comment about eight times the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) had called the confidential gang line. On Thursday, he said the first time I was informed of anyone calling the line was when the member for St. Johns raised it. You can check Hansard.

On Friday he had a different story on OB. It is the culture where a Minister of Justice puts at risk a confidential gang line, and the Premier of the province sits there all through Question Period, not wanting to engage in the issues before him, and just does not expect anybody to come clean, because the Minister of Justice had a third story on Friday, June 18, as he did June 17 and June 15.

You know, it is the same position he took on the telephone system. There are a number of people out here today talking about the Premier's word on the Manitoba Telephone System. It is a culture of deceit that we are after, that was commented on by Judge Monnin: I have never encountered more liars in all my years on the bench. This is what the Premier does not get. This is what he does not get when he tries to weasel out of his words when it was clear that he was going to refer to the Civil Service Commission, and now he is saying it was the consideration that I said I would do, rather than the referral.

Continued weaseling, continued denial, continued change of story. Again, it is the culture of deceit. When we look at what he said, there was about 300 or 400 people outside of this building today that have been locked out by the Manitoba Telephone System, every one of them commenting about the word of the Premier.

I do not know whether the Premier likes this or not, but most people believe–and the Premier has stated in his Estimates in the concurrence motion a couple of years ago that he, in fact, had only changed his mind after the election about the sale of the telephone system but before the election he acknowledged that he was not going to sell the phone system. It was not for sale. They were not going to privatize it. Candidates in Dauphin were saying the same thing. Then, of course, right after the election campaign, you know, here it goes: Broken word, broken promise.

The Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) sends out a document to 100,000 people on the confidentiality of the gang line. This was under their 1994-95 Gang Action Plan. If you give your word to 100,000 people that that line will be confidential, and the Minister of Justice breaches the confidentiality himself, why is this Premier not being as accountable with his ministers as Premier Harris is in Ontario with Mr. Runciman? Why is he not being as tough as what happened in Ontario with the former Minister of Highways, I believe? There is both the honesty and the standards of confidentiality that this Premier just does not seem to get. Of course, when we go to the No. 1 priority of people, the Premier promised to build the capital in the health care sector in 1995, notwithstanding the federal cuts. He said that irrespective of the cuts that were made by the former member for Portage-Interlake, now the defeated member of Selkirk-Interlake–he said it did matter that they were going to cut $260 million–we all thought it would matter–but these capital commitments will go ahead and go ahead, notwithstanding the federal cuts. Now, he is saying that they would have proceeded a long time ago if it was not for the federal cuts. This Premier is a stranger to the truth.

Now, we are not saying on our side of the aisle that we are perfect. You know, we have thousands of volunteers and people make mistakes, but the question is: what happens when a mistake is made? What happens when the Liberals are involved in an election violation? What happens when that takes place?

An Honourable Member: You go to court.

Mr. Doer: And Elections Manitoba convicted the Liberal Party, and that is right and that is fair enough. I just wanted to point out that things are not, you know–

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being six o'clock, committee rise.

Call in the Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): The hour being six o'clock, this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until tomorrow (Tuesday) at 1:30 p.m.