Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Would the Committee of Supply come to order please. 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): Mr. Chairperson, I understand it is raining again in the southwestern portion of the province which is regrettable. We had about seven days of reasonable weather, considering what we went through at the beginning of May and June.

The federal government's program announcement has been judged by people most directly affected to be woefully inadequate, Mr. Chairperson, and we are concerned about the Liberal federal government's inadequate announcement.

Can the Premier indicate what specific programs we will be announcing? It seems to me the idea of $25 per acre from the federal government on top of the other programs made sense. The Custom Seeding Program made sense. Are there any other specific programs we are announcing here in Manitoba?

* (1430)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I cannot give a final definitive answer to that without discussing it with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns). I believe that he is in his Estimates in another committee room, and he might be able to amplify more on what is being considered. I do know that in the course of our discussion that we have talked about a payment for the sunk cost of fertilizer and chemicals from last fall in preparation for the land for this year, and the land not being seeded, that is a sunk lost cost.

There was a program, I believe it came under JERI in 1997's Red River Valley flood relief program. We have put that in writing as a request, I believe, to the federal government. The second one is a program for maintenance of the land that is unseeded because it will grow over in weeds, and it will be tremendously difficult to even plant it next year if it becomes infested with weeds. So there needs to be a payment to maintain the land over the course of this summer, or as an alternative, I understand that the Ducks Unlimited proposal is one that puts a type of forage cover over it and allows for some value to be taken off it as well as having the farmer then maintain it for the summer in a ground cover that has some economic value.

Those are things that have been looked at. I do not know at what stage they might be and what our involvement might be, but clearly we are looking at all available alternatives to try and ensure that we are doing whatever is reasonable for the farmers.

Mr. Doer: I asked questions a couple of weeks ago about the Versatile plant here with the merged organization. The Premier indicated he would be in touch with the owners of the operation. Can the Premier advise us, has he contacted the owners and the status of the plant here in Manitoba?

Mr. Filmon: I am operating a bit from memory, and the member will forgive me if I do not get it absolutely right because I know I did have discussions immediately following that discus-sion in Question Period. I believe that the letter that I signed was to the CEO whom I have met on a number of occasions, the CEO of Ford New Holland in London, England. It was sent within a day or two of that discussion here in Question Period. We have not received a response that I have seen.

Mr. Doer: Yes, will the Premier be following that up with a phone call to the CEO whom he has met before just to get–sometimes letters get to somebody that gets to somebody. I am sure the Premier's letter would get to the CEO, but sometimes direct communication is also very helpful to the workers and the suppliers of Versatile here in this community.

Mr. Filmon: Yes, we believe it is a very important issue that we have to pursue vigorously, and the request was actually for a meeting. I was prepared to fly to London to have the meeting or wherever it was convenient for the CEO. We have had, I think, some informal response to the effect that they do not want to talk to anybody until they do their internal analysis of their assets in their combined facilities, but we will certainly pursue that if we do not hear very shortly.

Mr. Doer: There were some rumours on the street that were recorded and reported in some of the financial publications that, obviously, on top of the farm prices and everything else that has resulted in a reduction in the workforce over the last year, can cause considerable concern, so I just would ask you to keep us apprised of that issue.

Another question, and the Premier, I would think, would be aware of this issue if it was contemplated as a policy change by the government, but, as I understand, because he has been very involved in the Lotteries expansion over the years, is there any plan to expand the lottery operation? This is a rumour that I would like to–this is a legitimate question. I do not know the answer to the question. Is the government's Lotteries Commission considering changing their hours to be 24 hours a day–the casinos, that is, the Regent Avenue and the McPhillips Street Station.

Mr. Filmon: I have not been apprised of that rumour or any possible request to that effect. I do not know whether the Minister responsible for Lotteries (Mr. Praznik) has been before the House for Estimates, but he might be in a position to answer that. I am not, because I have not heard anything about that.

Mr. Doer: So the Premier has not approved a change in the lottery hours, and I do not know whether there is any rumour circulating about change in lottery hours for the Pan Am Games or whether it is just for the Pan Am Games or it is a permanent decision or if it is just a false rumour. There was some speculation that this may only take place for the Pan Am Games for expanded hours of operation.

I think something that would have that much impact on potentially the community, particularly the North End and the Regent Avenue operation with all kinds of impacts, would be something that would be beyond the purview of the Lotteries Commission and certainly be a policy decision that the minister and the Premier would be involved in because it would have public consequences and Crown corporations or operations like this are not supposed to operate without some kind of public consideration. So, again, is this rumour consistent with something in the Pan Am Games and only to the Pan Am Games?

Mr. Filmon: I am speaking just as one individual, but I can tell the member opposite that I would not favour 24-hour gaming on a permanent basis. If there were a proposal to consider it for the two-week period of the Pan American Games, a proposal that was supported by rationale and documentation and so on and so forth, I have no idea what the potential market would be. The member opposite has probably visited in Latin American countries, as I have, and knows that it is customary to have restaurants open until four and five in the morning in a lot of these Latin American countries. There is a different sense of the clock in a lot of them, so I would have to take a look at a rationale. All I can say is that I would not favour at any time a 24-hour operating on a permanent basis, and if there is a proposal for extension of the hours during the Pan American Games, I would have to have a lot of convincing even at that time to support it, but I would look at the rationale.

I have just got a note incidentally handed in to me from the minister's assistant saying that there is no intention of extending the operating hours. I am not sure whether that refers to short term or long term.

* (1440)

Mr. Doer: I appreciate that answer from the Premier as another individual, although this individual across the way has more power than this individual on this side. On this matter, I would agree with the Premier. My sense is that whatever the revenue benefits would be offset with the other social disruptions in our communities, and I am pleased to hear that the rumour is not founded in fact. We could not find any way of getting it verified or not verified. It was not a Question Period kind of question, because generally we try to know the answers to the questions or anticipate the answer of questions when we ask questions. As you have pointed out in the past, we do not always have the answers when we ask questions. Some of our questions are quite legitimate questions, but I appreciate the answer from the Premier. I would agree with the Premier, and I am sure the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) would also agree.

I understand the member for Inkster, whom I waited patiently for yesterday, much to my chagrin, has some questions, and I will allow him to proceed.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, I will attempt to keep it within 45 minutes, each question that is. No, I am kidding.

I wanted to continue on from where I left off in terms of the questioning in asking the question in terms of the political nature of the Seven Oaks report and the obligation of this government. I was somewhat surprised in terms of the response from the Premier where he states, and I quote: no, Mr. Chairman, I do not see that, so I guess I will have to have time to investigate further.

The "that" he is referring to is the very political nature of what we have before us. I do find that it is pretty incredible for an individual who is as astute as he is to become the Premier not necessarily understand the perception of the political nature of the issue that we have before us. What I ask the Premier to acknowledge is that this issue of the Seven Oaks principal violation of the breach of the integrity of our standard exams, very much so, has strong political ramifications. Would he at the very least acknowledge that fact?

Mr. Filmon: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe that it does have strong political overtones to it. There is no question that within certain groups in the education stakeholders of our province, there is firm and unalterable opposition to standards testing, the Manitoba Teachers' Society, for one. I was surprised to hear this week that the New Democrats have changed their opposition to standards and testing.

An Honourable Member: They are in favour of it. They favour standards exams.

Mr. Filmon: Well, I hear now that they do which is a shock to me because I know I debated this with various members in the lead-up to the 1995 election campaign. I know that the approach that the Liberals are taking is one of those, you know, we agree in principle but, and they have chosen the Grade 3 test as the one they say that they oppose, which is, of course, nonsense. Why should a parent have to wait until Grade 6 to find out that their child had a learning problem?

I mean, why would you waste the first six years of a child's public school education before you try and find out whether or not there is a serious issue that has to be dealt with, gaps in knowledge and understanding, gaps in the curriculum, any of those things that do occur? I have listened to middle school teachers say that they can tell you that children coming from particular elementary feeder schools have an entire gap of knowledge and understanding in certain areas of the curriculum because it is not being taught in particular feeder schools. So to take the position that it is Grade 3s who do not need it is absolute nonsense, but, anyway, that is another issue.

Back to the philosophical opposition, clearly the principal of that school, the Maples, who is also the chair of the NDP re-election campaign and a former president of the party, Mr. O'Leary, is opposed to standards testing. He is taking the blind philosophical position, opposed to it, as are a number of the stakeholder groups. His superintendent, who is also an ardent New Democrat who wrote the report, as I understand it, Mr. Wiens, is also the chair of the education policy committee of the New Democratic Party. So to say there is an incestuous relationship there amongst the NDP party, the principal who exposed the exam inappropriately to a math teacher before it was written, and the superintendent is absolutely fact.

So there are politics to this, but we also have to look at who the board members are who ultimately support or hire the superintendents and principals, and there are certain school divisions in which the dominant membership is New Democratic, and so all of these people would be inclined to support each other in attempting to resolve issues.

So, from all those perspectives, I do not deny that there is a possibility, even a probability that politics are behind certain things that are done. The question is: what should be done in order to resolve the situation, and I can say to the member opposite that that is not a position that I would make on my own, and it is not a position that I am in a position to discuss really because it is in the purview at the moment of the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae).

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, this is the reason why I discuss it now, is because the Premier poses the question in terms of what should be done. The Premier acknowledges the political nature of it, the principal being the former president and current campaign manager, and the one that supposedly wrote the report–I do not know for sure, because I have not seen the report–being the superintendent.

The benefits politically of raising the issue in terms of shaming and so forth are overwhelming for at least two parties inside this Chamber, and that is the primary reason why I say, given the political nature of this particular incident, that the Premier or the Department of Education would be doing a disservice if it was to have that internal review, that in fact what is really necessary is an external review.

So the question that I would put to the Premier is, if the Premier is content and the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) is content with that report–I have not seen the report–if the government is content with that report, well, I guess nothing will happen from here, but I would then argue that I would like to see a copy of that report. If the government is not content with that report, Mr. Chairperson, then I believe there is an obligation to take it to the next step. It is the next step that I believe the Premier can address, and that is, if the Premier and this government do not accept that report, would the Premier then commit to having an independent investigation? I think that is absolutely critical, and can the Premier not agree to that today that if there is going to be an appeal in any form of that report, it be done in an independent fashion away from the Department of Education?

* (1450)

Mr. Filmon: I would say this that I have not seen the report, so I cannot be content or discontent with it. Any further discussion on that matter would have to be engaged with the Minister of Education and Training, and any speculation as to what we might do if we were content or not content would have to wait until he has presented an analysis to government if he chooses to pursue it further. But I am not in any position to discuss it any further, nor will I speculate as to what we might do under any circumstances.

Mr. Lamoureux: I am wondering if the Premier can comment in terms of the length of time that has lapsed since the original breach of the standard exams and if he believes that an adequate amount of time to be trying to draw this thing to a close is, in fact, 10, 11, 12 months from the moment in which it was breached to the moment in which this government found out, and we are finally now today or last Friday the government has a report. Is this what we can expect any time there is a breach in the standard exams? Is this the type of message that this government wants to send to our institutions?

He commented to the effect that there are a lot of people that oppose it outright. If you have a principal at whatever level opposing standard exams, that is fine. I cannot be critical of that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it is a question of having a professional attitude towards your job. If you do not like it, sometimes you have to do things which you do not like. I know I have had to do that on considerable occasions, and I think that each and every one of us at times is obligated to do things that we do not like.

So I would have expected that whether someone supports it or does not, they will respect it because it is a provincial directive. Here we have a serious violation where that provincial directive was not followed, and it is past a year since that exam was actually written, and the issue is still up in the air. Is the Premier content with the amount of time that it has taken to date in order to get us as far as we are?

Mr. Filmon: Without knowing any of the details of why it has taken so long, yes, I certainly believe that this is an inordinate length of time to receive an analysis and report, to have the investigation done, but I also acknowledge that it was in the hands of the Seven Oaks School Division and its superintendent and outside of government's control. I do know that certainly they were urged to eventually get it done.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, before I leave this particular point to go on to the Question Period topic, there were some very serious suggestions that were happening today, and gestures, in Question Period in regard to the report. As I had posed the question to the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) who has actually read the entire report–he implied that he was reading it yesterday morning–there were allegations coming from the government benches that members of the New Democratic Party have already received or seen that report.

Is the Premier aware of the report being leaked in any fashion whatsoever? I think that is in fact a fairly serious allegation that I was hearing coming from the benches. I did not hear a response from the opposition party when that allegation was being made. Is the Premier himself aware of who might in fact be informed about the details of this particular report?

Mr. Filmon: I have no knowledge of that, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lamoureux: Would the Premier be in a position, if the government does accept the report, would the government then be in a position to table that report?

Mr. Filmon: I cannot give any further information other than that which the Minister of Education gave in Question Period, which indicated that there were third-party confidentiality concerns, and he had asked for a legal opinion on them before he could make that decision.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I am going to leave that particular issue for now anyway. I wanted to express serious disappointment in terms of the way in which this government has dealt with this breach of security, what appears on the surface to be an apparent cover-up, what appears on the surface to be an individual who has been harmed both reputation-wise and to his health and well-being. One would have liked to have seen a bit more of a sensitive government that was prepared to stand behind its provincial directives. It saddens me in the sense that these standards exams in which we invest millions of dollars every year are in fact being laughed at by so many as a result of this government's inability to address this particular breach.

Having said that, Mr. Chairperson, I wanted to go on to the questions that I had in Question Period earlier today. We had a very serious incident that happened earlier in the week where we found out that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) and his department had access to 9-4-5 numbers that were in fact being called in on the gang hotline. Yesterday, during Estimates, we found out that the Department of Justice is not the only department that is having the 9-4-5 number problem.

Has the Premier been informed of which departments to date actually have whatever information lines of a confidential nature in which we have seen that 9-4-5 problem surface?

Mr. Filmon: I think, as has been indicated by ministers in Question Period, my understanding is that the ability to identify a call source was only from the 9-4-5 exchange, which is the government exchange itself. In the various different lines, the call-in lines in various different programs, whether it be the poachers line or the social services welfare fraud line or the gang hot line, that has now been corrected in all of those areas. That is the information that I am given to understand.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, has the Premier sent out to other departments any form of directive to look into this particular issue? If not, is the Premier prepared to do that?

Mr. Filmon: Each minister has taken the responsibility for the action on that. I will verify through the Clerk of the Executive Council whether or not there is any possibility of any other areas that need to be examined. If we determine that they do need further examination and assurances, then we will do that.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, there is what one would classify as departmental or direct information lines of a confidential nature, and there are also the more indirect ones. I believe, for example, at times MPI will establish a line.

What is done in order to ensure that those lines and the integrity of those types of lines would in fact be protected?

Mr. Filmon: Well, as a result of the revelations of this past week, departments that have these kinds of lines have undertaken to have MTS ensure their anonymity, their security, and we will double-check to make sure that these things have all been looked after.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, is it possible to get from the government a listing of those confidential lines that are, in fact, administered both directly and indirectly by the government?

Mr. Filmon: I will endeavour to do that, Mr. Chairman.

* (1500)

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I do think that it is important, and I would ask if the Premier can, in fact, get that list of numbers so that we can do what we can in terms of ensuring due diligence in protecting the confidential nature of those lines. Having said that, no doubt there are a number of different areas in which one could venture into with the Executive Council, but I appreciate the fact that we have to be sensitive to the time. So I am quite prepared at this point to pass on, but I do look forward to getting a copy of the lines, of those telephone lines, from the Premier. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: 2.1 General Administration (b) Management and Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,043,300–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $398,300–pass.

2.1 (c) Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $363,000–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $95,600 –pass.

2.1 (d) Government Hospitality $10,000–pass.

2.1 (e) International Development Program $500,000–pass.

2.2 Amortization of Capital Assets $6,600–pass.

Resolution 2.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $6,600 for Executive Council, Amortization of Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

The staff can leave at this time, and we will now deal with the Premier's Salary.

2.1 General Administration (a) Premier and President of the Council's Salary $43,200–pass.

Resolution 2.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,453,400 for Executive Council, General Administration, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

This concludes Executive Council. We will move on to the Department of Highways.

Is it the will of the committee to take a five-minute recess while we get everybody here? [agreed]

________