EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

* (1440)

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Mike Radcliffe): Would the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates for Executive Council. Would the minister’s staff please enter the Chamber. We are on Resolution 2.1, page 11.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to respond to the Leader of the Opposition’s (Mr. Doer) questions regarding the various issues that he left with me yesterday.

The first question was with respect to the contracts that have been entered into with respect to communications for the Department of Health, and Biggar Ideas, Inc. As I indicated yesterday Treasury Board has approved a contract with Biggar Ideas, Inc. to the amount of up to $75,000, and Treasury Board has made no specific approval on any value for any campaign that may ensue from that particular contract.

Secondarily, I will quote from the letter that was sent by the Minister responsible for the Telephone System (Mr. Findlay) to the New Democratic critic for the Telephones, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), dated April 17, 1996. Dear Mr. Ashton: This letter is in response to your question in the House on April 10, 1996, respecting a contract between Biggar Ideas, Inc. and the Manitoba Telephone System. MTS entered into a contract with KPMG to do the reorganization initiative in early 1995. KPMG then hired Biggar Ideas, Inc. on a subcontract basis in September 1995 to assist with the communications activity surrounding the reorganization. KPMG was responsible for remuneration to Biggar Ideas, Inc.

The Leader of the Opposition also asked a question respecting the tabling of any documents emanating from the APM work that was done with respect to home care analysis and reorganization in the province, and that documentation has been tabled today by the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae). I understand, secondarily, the question was asked about the report that was presented by the Home Care Advisory committee chaired by Ms. Paula Keirstead, and I understand that document was tabled today by the Minister of Health.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): First of all, I thank you for the information on Biggar Ideas and the campaign in the Department of Health.

Point No. 2, I am disappointed in KPMG that they would not release the amount of money Ms. Biggar has received, and if we have to pursue that with the minister on KPMG to find out how much--I mean, it is the Premier that had the Speech from the Throne that talked about lifting the veil of secrecy and disclosure and all these other things in December, and I hope this lifting the veil of secrecy starts with the Premier.

I want to thank the Premier for the release of the Keirstead report. I would ask him to ask his ministers--I tell our caucus people, and the Premier knows that when I table something in this House he gets it from the Clerk’s desk immediately, because we are required to table three copies. I think it is absolutely inappropriate, and we found this out in the last couple of weeks where we on this side and the Liberals do not get the courtesy of a copy. Then we have to ask the staff at the Clerk’s table to get us a copy, and they are lengthy documents, so that we can read it, especially documents we have been asking for for weeks. We should not have to read it in two minutes or have to ask the Clerk’s staff to make copies when the minister has the resources to table documents. I notice, when they were tabling letters that they thought were advantageous to their position yesterday, you could not walk out of this building without having a flurry of them hit you in the hallway. So I think that I would ask the Premier to use the same principles with his own ministers as we use with our critics.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have a discrepancy again on the Connie Curran-APM contract. The contract is dated January 5, 1994, and the minister tabled a document not from APM but a health care demonstration project from Manitoba Health that is November 9, 1993. Then, in his document that he tabled from Keirstead, it had a recommendation signed in November of 1994 dealing from APM that said, do not contract out. So we have not had enough time to read all the documents, but certainly, unless there is clerical error or tampering with the dates, there is a discrepancy. I do not think we have the APM document. If we do have it, then the minister who stood up in this House for the last week and said there is no report, I think that is a serious matter for him, the Premier.

If we do not have the report, then what the Premier just said now about supplying the report, I do not think is correct. Now, I know the government has put out a flurry of documents out there, and I thank him for the Keirstead document, but I want to say to the Premier, the difference between the APM report and the Keirstead document is, the Keirstead document is advice to the minister after the March 1 press release of the government, where they announced the privatization. It is a piece that reacts to the government’s announcement. The APM report makes a recommendation to the government not to proceed with contracting out as from what we can read in the November 1994 recommendation which was contained deep within the contents of the report that was released from Keirstead today.

* (1450)

So what we are trying to get at is, is this a political ideological profit-driven decision of the government, or is this a decision based on sound research? We are going to have to dig through all of this, but we still think we are missing one report which is required in the contract on 19 occasions, and the recommendations are required in the contract that we paid for, the taxpayers paid for, on 16 occasions. On three occasions, it says an action plan will be produced for the Department of Health. Now, we have a demonstration project that predates the dating of the contract. So we will have to do some more work on this. We are not so sure. Can the Premier advise us whether we have in fact--has he assured his staff and can he assure us that what happened in the House here, in the flurry of questions and the flurry of paper that we could not read until the last four minutes of Question Period--and I want to thank the Clerk’s staff for giving us some of that material. I really appreciate it, and I want to thank the people at the table personally for that. But I want to know from the Premier, is he confident now that we have the report from APM, from Connie Curran, that was required in the contract that his government, his ministry, his Treasury Board approved and his government signed on behalf of the people.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I will be the first to acknowledge that it is very, very difficult to sort out all of the reports and information that are in the files with respect to anything, including this particular issue on home care.

The member opposite does not need to believe me. All I say to him is I will try and share with him my perspective on it. I know he has strong feelings about this. I know that this is a subject of extreme conflict between his ideology and his party’s ideology and our government’s position.

I can tell him this that throughout the past 10 years, there is probably nothing that has been the subject of more study and perhaps more conflicting ideas and opinions than the provision of home care. I can only think that it is because it has been the most rapidly growing area of the health care budget in Manitoba, No.1, and the fact that it serves, if memory serves me correctly, some 17,000 individuals per year. It is a huge area of service.

It has been a subject of great controversy, great criticism. He knows better than anyone that we have gone through a situation in which we have had literally hundreds of complaints about the delivery of home care, yet at the same time he and his colleagues are arguing that it is the best system in Canada. That may sound as though it is conflicting, but one could make an assessment that says, well, even though it is a subject of hundreds of complaints a year it is still the best system in Canada. That I can understand. I could make myself see the logic through that.

At the same time, I might say, those very, very people that have been condemning the system and causing us to continue to study and evaluate and look for options and alternatives are now defending it as it is saying, do not make this massive change. Firstly, I would argue, this is not a massive change; secondly, I would say--and the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) gives me a look--and I will say why it is not a massive change. It represents 25 percent of the home care attendant work in the city of Winnipeg, which is a sliver of a sliver, because the work is in three categories as she knows: home care attendants, home care support and the home care nursing component.

We are taking a sliver of a sliver. Having said all that, I will acknowledge that they and their friends and cohorts are making this a huge life-and-death struggle, which, I would argue, is not in the best interests of those receiving the service and not in the best interest in service. Suffice it to say that there are so many different analyses. The Price Waterhouse one, initiated and completed under the New Democrats, in which their recommendations, among many things, said, bring in user fees, cut back the services to the recipients of home care and put them on a waiting period when they are going to get home care so that they pay their own way for a while before you decide whether or not the government should pick up the tab on a longer-term basis, recommendations that clearly have not been followed by this administration.

I can also say that the so-called leaked Treasury Board document that he and his colleagues put forward was not followed to the extent that the proposals were in there. We have not got a Crown corporation. We have--what was the other aspect of it that was not followed? There are a number of areas in which we did not follow that particular policy decision because of changes that were made in the process of approval.

Certainly, I can tell him that there are many conflicts in the recommendations but, for instance, the Advisory Committee to Continuing Care chaired by Ms. Kierstead indicated, and I quote, they are not opposed to contracting out, so this decision is not inconsistent. Their appeal was for clearer standards, setting of standards for delivery of this service, and the fact of the matter is, again, I find it very, very confusing to be told that this is the best program in Canada and then to be told it does not have standards. Of course, it has standards. Of course, it has standards, standards that are being maintained, that are being judged each and every day, and if they are not being met there is an appeal body that people complain to and have their appeals reviewed so that, indeed, they do meet the standards and the requirements of the care under the program. So this is confusing and is conflicting, I might say.

The third area is the Connie Curran review and analysis, the APM review and analysis, and this is an organization, and I know that the member opposite understands this because it was the subject of extensive, heated debate in this Chamber and throughout the province that their method of operation is not to do an analysis and a report but is rather to work together with those who are doing the analysis work and they guide a process. They work, in effect, as team leaders working with other people who are coming to the recommendations and conclusions and delivering them to government, task teams and all those things that worked in the St. Boniface Hospital, Health Sciences Centre and so on, in the original major chunk of the APM process that had to do with our tertiary care hospitals.

* (1500)

My understanding is, and again, you know, I mean, I am taking a risk even trying to discuss it because I am not the Minister of Health, but I try to as much as I can understand the process and I am, therefore, imparting my limited knowledge to the Leader of the Opposition. My understanding is that they engaged in the same process with those involved in the continuing care process, and that included, I might say, a whole group of people who were part of the Steering Committee on this process. It included the former Deputy Minister of Health, Frank Maynard; the Executive Director of the Health Action Centre, Jeanette Edwards; the Registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Ken Brown; the ADM of the Department of Health at the time, Betty Havens; the interim director, Home Care Branch, Marilyn Robinson; the Winnipeg Home Care supervisor, Cathy Lussier; the department of continuing health at the University of Manitoba, Dr. Evelyn Shapiro; the former Executive Director of Mount Carmel Clinic, Anne Ross; the President of Victoria General Hospital, Marion Suski; the Director of Finance and Administration of Manitoba Health, Tammy Mattern; and the Chairman of Bethel Place, Ray Wahl. So this group was kind of, I think, the guiding group, and then underneath them were the task teams of people from within the Continuing Care, as it was known then, Home Care system as it is being described now. Out of that came a series of recommendations, and that is what has been laid on the table, that is the documentation, because we have not been able to, I have not through my efforts been able to find any formal report, but this was transmitted by the then assistant deputy minister to the deputy minister as the work that came out of that contract and as the assurance and certification that the contract had been fulfilled.

So that is all we have been able, through my efforts, through the efforts of the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), to find. It is a huge document. I was just handed it at 1:20 this afternoon, so I do not know what is in it, and I am in exactly the same position as the Leader of the Opposition.

I have apparently used my ten minutes. If I can either be given leave or else, I will sit down and--

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): Is there leave for the honourable First Minister? [agreed]

Mr. Doer: Just while I am giving leave, can I get a copy of that committee that you just got from your staff?

Mr. Filmon: Yes, we will have that copied for you.

The other element to the puzzle is that the apparent recommendations or conclusions were that all the home care not be contracted out--all. But it did as well, as part of that--and it is multi pages, I mean he has it and I have it and I do not know if it is 100 pages or more--part of it also says, though, that some elements of it ought to be looked at for external contracting, external delivery on a contracting-out basis. So there too you have the confusion that you can either take this sentence, which is do not contract all of it out, or this sentence that says, look at the possibility and the opportunities and the advantages of contracting out part of it.

So we can get into this and we can debate whether there are recommendations that lead to this conclusion or not lead to this conclusion and we can both be right, and that is exactly what we are going to see through this, because basically there is a fundamental disagreement with the decision on the part of the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters and the position that our government is taking.

Mr. Doer: I thank the Premier for this. We indeed will read all the documents that we were given and these are serious issues because in the material that was handed out, there are some dates we have to check out, we have to read them and I am not here to debate all these groups. I guess this is the problem with having 102 committees that the government set up. It is very hard to know exactly who is making what decision and what advice is being provided to the government. I find it interesting that Dr. Evelyn Shapiro is on this group. I remember the Premier making some comments about her last week. We are going to read the documents. I just say that within five minutes we realize there is a discrepancy between what the minister tabled as the APM and what Keirstead has in the APM document on Recommendation No. 6 in terms of dates. But we are going to go back and read it. I would say, we did make presentations in 1993 to the Home Care Coalition, which included disabled and senior people, to improve the flexibility of home care because we recognized--in the early 1970s, the service went from just the nonprofit VON to the provincial Home Care program--that we were serving a growing and different population in the 1990s than the 1970s. We in our platform and our alternative speech from the throne--you borrowed our term “Manitoba works” in your campaign from our alternative speech from the throne. I am sure you--

Mr. Filmon: . . . good ideas wherever we find them.

Mr. Doer: I know. I wish we had more money to have advertised our ideas before you took it out of our speech from the throne. However, I wish you would have taken our ideas on home care because we also talked about what we perceive to be transition in home care. We did not, in our view, introduce the whole notion of profit and private. In fact, we were very worried about the possibility of that initiative because again the people that give us advice, starting with the clients, did not want to proceed that way. I am just going to leave this with one--the Premier talks about the NDP, the Premier talks about the employees, and there are corporate interests in this issue as well, private companies, other companies that want to move into the home care field, companies that want to move into private insurance insuring health care services.

The ministers across the way have been bashing this group and bashing that group. We would like this debate to be on the cost, the quality, and the clients, and you are not going to have your minister stand up and say one thing about employees and unions, and not have us talk about corporations that have a tremendous vested interest in profit and changes and policies too. So I leave that as notice to the Premier, but I would prefer to have this debate. First of all, I would prefer it to end this weekend because I think the recommendation from a number of people, particularly clients, to put this whole thing on hold and have some public hearings, I think, is good advice. I think listening to the clients that spoke to you in the seniors’ document, when we get beyond your disagreement with mine, and the union’s disagreement with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), and the employees’ disagreement with the government

There is, after all, one group that we are all interested in, and there is no such thing as a totally homogeneous position from any group on this thing. You can find employees that oppose the dispute; you can find the majority of them in favour. You can find clients that are opposed to the dispute and support privatization, but the majority of clients we have listened to and talked to on the phone and listened to continuously--and we get a lot of the same letters the Premier has. If we want to get into a letter-tabling contest, I suggest the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) would be--I do not think that is a wise strategy because I think the Premier knows we have a lot more of them from a lot more people. I would just go back to Dr. Mary Pankiw’s letter that I tabled the first day at Question Period in this House; I would go back to David Martin’s letter or the document that I tabled for the Premier’s attention in the House last week. When I asked the Minister of Health about that document on Monday, he said David Martin does not know the details. If he knew the details, he would agree with our position. Well, he did know the details. He knows them quite well, and I suggest to the Premier that over the weekend, I am going to strongly recommend, he spend time with Dr. Mary Pankiw, he spend time with the Manitoba seniors, he spend time with David Martin or Mr. Rosner on behalf of the disabled organizations. He has his advice from Treasury Board; he has his advice from the Department of Health. He says there are different recommendations, you could go either way, based on all the reports. We will have to see. I would like the government to stop, look and listen to the clients this weekend. I would really recommend you do that.

* (1510)

Some want an end to privatization, some want an end to the process of privatization immediately, and they all want a long-term halt of this initiative that was announced by the Minister of Health on March 1. They all want this thing to stop, and I am talking about people from all political parties. I presume most of the people who support the Conservatives would have a philosophy and ideology similar to the Premier on most issues, but on health care, they do not agree with the Premier. We are talking lots of people from all walks of life and from all political parties.

They do not want to see--and the Premier uses VON--a sliver or a whole project of people moving into profit in health care, in home care. They do not want it. They do not mind Ford competing with General Motors. They do not mind McDonald’s competing with Burger Factory--a place in my constituency, good food. They do not mind that. They do not mind Pitblado & Hoskin competing with Thompson Dorfman Sweatman. They do not mind these things. They understand that there is a marketplace with competition; I do not have any problem with that. We have a mixed economy here in Manitoba. When people say, why do you not tender out this or why do you not tender out that? Why do we not tender out St. Boniface Hospital? That is ridiculous. We are opposed to that.

When we are talking about the future of home care, there are two distinct directions to go in. All programs need to be improved every year. I have no problem with that position, but we are looking at two paths in the road--you know, the old Frost poem, The Road Not Taken. That is why people are so concerned about stopping it now. It is not just this little move, or a little move down here, they do not want to take the wrong path. They want to have the path of nonprofit. They are not upset about VON; it may be a private company, but it is nonprofit. They do not want profit in the changes in home care. Those are the two forks in the road in health care right now, and the fork in the road that is nonprofit, clients, the majority of Manitobans do not agree with, I suggest to the Premier. Sometimes you do things that people agree with and I do not like the fact that they agree with you, but sometimes you do things that you know they do not agree with you on and your own supporters do not agree on.

I am asking the Premier this weekend, I will read the reports, the Premier will read the reports. I am very worried about what is going to happen over the longer term when people dig in, and I was hoping we could prevent the strike by tabling documents last week and the week before. I was hoping we could stop the strike with legislation we are going to introduce next week on nonprofit versus profit. The best way to stop it is the Premier, taking a deep breath this weekend, listen to Dr. Mary Pankiw, David Martin and others and do not go down the path of profit, because that is not the path people want for their future vision of home care. I will leave that with the Premier.

That is not a question. I will sit down and ask another question. We will move along, if we want.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): I believe there is a question that has been put to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon), and I would look to the First Minister at this point for a response.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I accept what the Leader of the Opposition has said. I disagree, obviously. I do not believe that by introducing a small piece of the services for competition for alternative deliveries that we are, in any way, endangering the program, endangering the services that are very good services but can be improved, we believe. I just tell him that it is a small piece; if the outcomes are not supportable or acceptable, why would we go ahead with more of the system? But what does he have to fear? An opportunity for people to demonstrate whether or not that small piece can indeed produce better results than we currently have. It seems to me that is a position that is not supportable and that is something that I would expect people would look at.

I did not hear all the dates he threw on the table, but if I could clarify, is he suggesting that somewhere in Ms. Keirstead’s comments there is a reference to studies that were done in November of ’93?

Mr. Filmon: No.

Mr. Doer: The minister tabled a document for November ’93; Keirstead quoted a document in November ’94. That contract is dated January ’94.

Mr. Filmon: Yes.

Mr. Doer: Now, I do not know--

Mr. Filmon: Okay. My understanding--and I know that this went on--from asking people involved in Treasury Board was that it was assumed by virtue of the global contract that had been entered into with APM that they could do a variety of different things. They were already working in the fall of ’93 on the home care analysis, so that a date of November of ’93 would have been part and parcel of work they were already doing. It was pointed out by somebody at Treasury Board that they did not have authorization for this and so the contract was not signed until January of ’94 for work that had already been underway for several months. I am told that is the case. So if that solves the problem with respect to that November ’93 issue, that may be it.

Another bit of information that the member opposite asked for and that was with respect to the regulation that was passed that repealed the multimaterial stewardship program--oh, sorry, it waived the payment of $862,379.17 in penalties. They were penalties that had not been collected, and, of course, the threat of collection was there so that we could get a multimaterial stewardship program entered into by all of the different companies.

I think it was alleged firstly--and I said straightforwardly that Barb Biggar had absolutely nothing to do and no discussions on this and I have confirmation of that from all the people involved--but it was also alleged that this was somehow a big benefit to one particular bottler or manufacturer of drinks. I am told that 56 different manufacturers or distributors were the beneficiary of that, and these companies range in size and scope from very small groups to ones with more than 500 employees in Manitoba, and that in fact it was the carrot and stick and the minister was wanting the participation and agreement of all the various players in this multimaterial stewardship group to come together and agree to a long-term program, which they did agree, and in response to that agreement, the unpaid penalties were waived.

* (1520)

Mr. Doer: As I say, I hope we are not carrying on the debate on profit and nonprofit and home care next week.

My advice to the Premier was to meet with Dr. Mary Pankiw from the seniors organization who wrote the letter to the Premier that I tabled to meet with David Martin, to meet over the weekend and listen to them. Do not listen to me. Do not listen to some of your ministers who have their heels dug in. Listen to people who are the clients who have expertise. Some of them are volunteers or seniors. Listen to the words of the Premier in his own election campaign. These people in the seniors organization built this province. They built this great province--the spirit they had to build this province, and I would ask the Premier to use that same spirit this weekend.

Maybe you want to even meet with them in the same railway car that you shot the ad in the museum, but just spend some time this weekend. Get out of this building, get out of the fight in this Chamber, get out of the advice you may be getting from your Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) and Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) who seems--I mean, yesterday his comments in the Chamber in the Estimates, I think the Premier would want to review that at a more sober period in terms of what he is saying. It is not very helpful.

I think we should get away from bashing various institutions. We would rather debate the issue of the cost, the quality and the implications of profit, but we would rather not debate it next week because we would like the Premier to stop his Minister of Labour and Minister of Health and get an agreement. We are not talking about the government changing its--I mean, the proposal, as I understand it and what all the people are asking for, is the government to put these plans on hold. I am not saying, abandon your principles. I would like you to abandon your principles on profit and home care. They are not saying that; they put it on hold.

That is what he is being asked to do, so when he gets out of this building tonight or whenever I would like him to spend a little time this weekend with the seniors and with the disabled community. There is an opening, I think, on the weekend, hopefully. Hopefully there is an opening today. I would like this silly thing to be settled. We wanted to give the Premier the opening prior to the dispute, because I think it is in everybody’s best interest to get the thing resolved ahead of time, obviously for the clients, but I will leave that with him. I am giving you the recommendation to meet with those individuals and I tabled those letters, obviously to pressure the government to change its mind, but obviously I thought there were--we get hundreds of letters and I could table five or six a day. The Premier is getting copies of most of them and I would just ask the Premier to look at that.

I would like to move on to some areas of federal-provincial relations. We talked about the Constitution yesterday. Can the Premier please advise us on the status of the treaty land entitlement with the federal government and the First Nations here in Manitoba?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to that last part and say that the member opposite knows full well that this is pure ideology on the part of those who are opposing this, and what we are asking for is an opportunity to demonstrate with a small part of the delivery being opened to competition, the competitive bidding. If we were to delay this for a year it would make absolutely no difference to the Manitoba Government Employees’ Union because they have already said that with them this has nothing to do with quantifying any aspects of their collective agreement. We are just discussing a pure philosophical difference, and they would be just as opposed next year as they would this year, and we would not have had the opportunity to evaluate the outcomes of the small portion of the work that is being externalized.

Getting to the treaty land entitlement discussion, my understanding is that an agreement in principle with respect to a basis for settlement has been initialed by the negotiators for the 19 bands that were at the table and has been signed off by our negotiators and the negotiators for the federal government, and it is sitting on the desk of the federal Minister of Indian Affairs, Mr. Irwin.

Mr. Doer: I am pleased to hear that we have moved along in the negotiations. As the Premier knows, we had a treaty land entitlement agreement in the mid-’80s, and the federal government and the federal minister, the former federal minister Mr. McKnight, the Honourable Mr. McKnight, was opposed to the population numbers and was concerned about some negotiations in Saskatchewan, and thought the agreement that we had arrived at in Manitoba would prejudice those discussions.

I know that if we would have accepted the agreement that was negotiated, and I think there was even an Order-in-Council authorizing the government to proceed, and I remember reading back the comments of the Premier where he supported that agreement as well, we in Manitoba would have been a lot further ahead in terms of knowing what the scope would be, and knowing what the land would be and the requirements.

Now, of course, the population growth and the economic implications, et cetera, nothing is static. If you do not get something early on, what may be required later may be quite a bit different. So I would encourage the government--I think every decade we waste definitely works against First Nations people in terms of having an economic opportunity through a land base and resource base, and every decade we waste can potentially slow down a government that must deal with the other side of the negotiations.

I, again, would not want to see what--I really worry about what has happened in British Columbia, because you have political parties taking different positions on something that was negotiated between the B.C. government, the Nisga’a First Nations people, and the federal government. I hope that things are proceeding, and as I say, I was very disappointed in the mid-’80s that the federal government rejected the proposal from here in Manitoba that was agreed to by the chiefs and the provincial government. The Premier’s statements were positive about it. He said he would respect that agreement, as I recall in his comments in 1988. I wish the government well, and I hope that they can get a successful conclusion to the terms of reference and terms of principles that they will be utilizing.

I remember his Minister of Finance said that the second Repap agreement, that even the Leader of the Opposition would have trouble with it. I liked the second agreement a lot more than the chlorine-bleached first agreement, as the Premier knows in ’89, but I did raise the issue of treaty land entitlement again, which was an issue that was raised by the corporate vice-president of Repap in letters that Clayton Manness tabled in this Chamber a few years ago.

I wish the government well. We want the government to succeed with the TLE committee and the bands in Manitoba, and succeed with the federal government on this next step. I have had the opportunity to meet Chief Dennis Whitebird, and I have been very impressed with his presentation on some of the economic advantages for all Manitoba, notwithstanding the economic advantages for settling treaty land entitlement for the local communities. I wish the government well on that issue.

I heard the Premier’s comments on the GST today, and I may concur with his comments about the Deputy Prime Minister. I am sure the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) would agree about her comments about abolishing the GST. The Premier, I notice , was pointing out that discrepancy between her red book commitment and her apparent conversion on the road to Damascus in the wrong direction. I guess it was not on the road to Damascus for the GST; it is on the road to Hades, perhaps.

I have heard the Premier’s comments about Atlantic Canada, and the Liberal governments in Atlantic Canada. It is rather interesting, you know, we have had GST harmonization in five provinces, if the three Atlantic provinces agree, or it may be six provinces. I think Canadians are not aware of this. The first province to agree to GST harmonization was the Liberal province of Quebec under Mr. Bourassa; the second province to agree was the Conservative province of Saskatchewan. In fact, when people talk about taxation in Saskatchewan, and I do not want to get into that debate, one of the first things the Romanow government did was to stop the harmonization of the GST that was agreed to by the Devine government, in fact was being collected in the province of Saskatchewan in 1991. And now, of course, we have back to the Liberal compact on the GST which, I think, is wrong. I think we should be phasing it out and phasing it out as promised in the red book, and I remember the Prime Minister promising to phase out the GST at Brandon University. I remember he was challenged by the media, how are you going to do it? Oh, do not worry, everything is fine, we will do it. He could not tell us how.

* (1530)

I just want to know, is the Premier saying that under the--and now, the other thing, the insidious part of this is the Liberals in opposition were very critical of the first proposal from Michael Wilson that would be 9 percent and would be hidden. Now that it is 7 percent and visible, they are talking about a hidden tax, which again is not only regressive but it is also absolutely dishonest. That is not abolishing the GST; that is abolishing the tax on your bill.

We also know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) has been meeting with the federal government on this issue. We are also aware that they have said no to this proposal, no to that proposal, no to the other proposal. Is the Premier saying today--and I would like him to say today--I heard him on the radio for a minute there today and I got the flavour of what he said on the GST. I did not listen to your whole interview. I apologize. But is the Premier saying today that it is no truck or trade with any GST proposal from the federal government, or are they saying just no to what they hear is the present proposal from the federal government?

Mr. Filmon: For all of the reasons that I have given publicly, including this morning, I do not think it is in Manitoba’s interest to consider harmonization of provincial sales tax with the federal GST. Regardless of what it is termed, a new national sales tax buried in the price and all of those things, for all the reasons the member opposite has indicated, I do not think it is in our interest, and so we are saying no. Having said that, we cannot stop the federal government from coming forward with new proposal after new proposal after new proposal. If there were a proposal that did not negatively impact on Manitobans, Manitoba consumers, I would be wrong not to consider it, but I have not seen anything that even comes close to that. Everything that has been put forward so far has massive negative consequences for the consumers of Manitoba, as well as for the Manitoba Treasury, I might say.

I want to just say for the record, and not as a knock against my colleague and good friend Roy Romanow, that since the member opposite has raised that particular transition decision of 1991, that having cancelled the harmonization, he later, of course, had to raise both income taxes and the sales tax rate in Saskatchewan in order to make up revenues. That was a choice that he made, and as I say, he is a friend and a colleague, and I do not knock it. He made his choice, and we have made our choices along the way as well.

Mr. Doer: Perhaps your choice was easier when the--I know he takes credit for the ’88-89 surplus of $55 million. I know we take credit for it, but perhaps the Premier’s choices were easier to make when one is faced with being elected in a current year. I remember getting briefed from the Department of Finance, and I know the Premier could tell everybody what he wants, but I remember hearing three things: One, we were at 6 percent in the polls; two, we were not doing that well in our own party finances; and three, we are going to hand the Conservatives a surplus. Other than that, it was a pretty good day, the day after I was elected Lleader.

Ultimately, the documentation--I mean, the bottom line was that every year that Grant Devine was in government and every year in Manitoba the NDP was in government, the debt and deficit, the year-over-year debt was twice as much as Manitoba every year in Saskatchewan.

But I want to move along. The Premier is saying he is not making any deals with the federal government on the GST. Is that correct?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I will repeat that we do not believe it would be in the best interests of Manitobans to make that kind of agreement on harmonization with the federal government, and I have no intention to do that. On the other hand, the federal government keeps coming up with new proposals in their attempt to try and find something that is palatable to other provinces in Canada. They are not even close to anything that would interest us, and I do not anticipate that they can do anything that would interest us because certainly the numbers just do not work out for them. They are always looking to find a way in which they can somehow harmonize and vary, but everything I have seen says that the negative consequences to Manitoba would not in any way motivate us to agree to it.

Mr. Doer: I want to move on. The Port of Churchill, can the Premier advise us--I noted, first of all, the agricultural policy. There was supposed to be a $300-million transition fund in western Canada. Have there been any funds allocated to the line, to the port, to the facilities?

There was a Free Press article about a year ago out of Ottawa, and it looked like a strategic leak from the federal minister responsible for Manitoba. You get these stories saying a source says but Lloyd Axworthy confirms, blah, blah, blah. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out who is the source and who is the commentator. Can the Premier indicate has there been any money? That $20 million, as was announced or leaked to the Free Press, has that ever been confirmed? And what is the strategy to implement the task force report that has been produced.

Mr. Filmon: We have no confirmation of any of that money being available. We also suspect that it may be held up by the privatization of CN, because that will be one of the decisions that will have to flow out of the privatization, I would assume, as to what commitment they are prepared to make to that line.

With respect to the report, it seems to me that the provincial report, the provincially driven report, the Arctic Bridge, and the other one which was the Gateway North, which was the federal-provincial one, both identified numerous opportunities that are now being regurgitated by Terry Duguid’s committee.

When I saw them talk about taking grain to eastern Europe and bringing concentrate or ore back for smelting here, that was something that was in the Arctic Bridge report, for instance. There are a number of what appear to be very viable alternatives that should be considered for processing and would bring in opportunities to Churchill that I think would enhance its economic future very, very well, but I do not know of any other further progress that has been made.

Mr. Doer: We have discussed with CN our concern about the privatization of the line to Churchill. Perhaps we can get some briefing from the federal officials who are working on this at some point.

I would ask the Premier if perhaps it would be possible to have, rather than all of us running off in different directions, perhaps it would be useful to have the lead minister for Churchill, I believe it is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) brief us with the federal government officials in a similar way to what we did with the Air Command and just sit down and find out what is going on and what is not going on. I remember Lloyd Axworthy’s promise of a million tonnes of wheat and all you have to do is have the political will. I thought we were having a rough time with the former Mulroney government, who, of course, is a close personal friend of the Premier and I notice he was at his usual low-key self yesterday in the media. I would ask maybe for a briefing on that topic.

* (1540)

I want to move on to AECL. Three years ago I proposed that we have an all-party committee on AECL because I heard then that it was in jeopardy of losing jobs to Chalk River and losing jobs with federal government cuts. The government eventually invited us to join in kind of a mission to Ottawa, kind of a one-day wonder with federal officials, et cetera. We appreciate that opportunity, but I would like to know from the Premier, what is the status of jobs at AECL, what is the status of the task force, and is there any truth to the rumour about another potential loss of 200 jobs that is circulating around Pinawa in terms of the scientific jobs and safety jobs in the safety section at the Pinawa AECL site?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I will just say that I will make a note and have my staff send a memo to the Minister of Transport, I believe, is the lead minister on the Churchill co-ordination. We have a person who has been appointed on the Duguid committee at our request and that is Mr. Manson Moir, who was formerly president of UMM and is sitting in on meetings beginning today, I understand. So we will attempt to get a briefing, and, certainly, this is an all-party endeavour and we will welcome the opportunity to have the New Democrats and Liberals involved in that process.

The matter of Pinawa, of course, has been of great interest and concern to the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik), who represents that area and has gone to Ottawa and raised the attention along with colleagues opposite and the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), and I believe that kind of high profile action did get the attention of the federal government and probably was instrumental in their decision to appoint the Peter Siemens task force. We attempted to get more representation than we ultimately were given on that task force, but ultimately they accepted the appointment of one of the names that we put forward, and that was the secretary of the Economic Development Board of Cabinet, Mr. Stuart Duncan, who is representing us on that task force.

The matter about nuclear safety and other matters is certainly foremost in our minds as we attempt to identify the areas in which Pinawa has far greater expertise and capability and represents a greater opportunity for justifying the investment there. They have many issues that they are putting on the table in an effort to try and persuade the federal government to work co-operatively to keep Pinawa viable. I think rather than a traumatic cut in their budget, which is being suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, we are just as concerned with the slow attrition that is occurring because of the uncertainty with some very highly skilled scientific people seeking opportunities elsewhere because they fear that the federal government does not have a commitment to Pinawa and therefore their jobs eventually will disappear and so they are taking their own action. I understand that Pinawa’s staff complement is slowly eroding but, in particular, some of their best people are perhaps looking elsewhere for opportunities.

In either case, we are concerned about the negative outlook and certainly the massive negative impact that would occur on that part of eastern Manitoba if we were not able to put together a strong, strong case to change the federal government’s mind on this.

Mr. Doer: I would like to ask a question. I noted the other day that apparently some of the federal members from this community were getting praised in editorials for raising the issue of, quote, the head tax and immigration policy in Manitoba, and I was wondering whether this editorial was leading to a result of whether the federal government was going to in fact reduce this, what has been called by Mr. Denton a racist tax?

I do not know whether--I guess I cannot use the term “racist” in terms of past history in Manitoba or present history or future history, but I can use it about the federal government, as I understand the ruling. I would not want to trip over that. I will not ask the Premier questions about certain ethnic groups or certain groups in our society--this is B’nai Brith Week--being allowed to join the Manitoba Club or not. Those events did not happen because they are illegal to mention in this Chamber.

But I would like to ask the Premier: Where is this head tax going? Where is this immigration policy going? Should we be cheered by the editorial about how successful we are by raising this issue with the federal Minister of Immigration, or is this going to have a result or is it just politics and public relations?

Mr. Filmon: I am informed by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer) that to his knowledge there has been no change in the federal policy.

Mr. Doer: I am going to make a suggestion to the Premier. Perhaps we should invite all federal members of Parliament to a meeting with the Leaders of the parties here in Manitoba and ask them to take more than just a little notice in raising this as a sort of, well, I have raised this, so I-am-okay-Jack kind of issue. Perhaps we should invite all the members of Parliament in all three political parties to a meeting, and I am suggesting this to my friends in the Liberal Party. I know the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) is concerned about this, along with the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), because it affects their constituencies. Invite the 12 Liberals, one New Democrat, one member of the Reform Party to a meeting here in the Legislature where we can talk about the impact of this head tax on Manitobans and get some agreement that they will go back to Ottawa with more than just letters and nice editorials but will go back and get results.

I am just giving out an idea, because we have had town hall meetings here as an opposition party; we have had meetings in communities; we have had members from the Liberal Party speak; we have Mr. Denton speak; we have had Mr. Dalin speak from the settlement centre. All those places seem to be getting cut, and we seem to be getting this head tax, and we seem to be getting nowhere except flowery editorials that do not mean a darn bit of difference to the families that are going to get nailed with this tax and cannot afford to move to our country.

We all have come to this country. We are all, except the First Nations people, immigrants, sons and daughters of immigrants. We are all second- or third-generation immigrants. I find, when you look at the committee room in the Legislature, you look around at all the Premiers there, none of their parents had to pay a head tax. So I am making a suggestion to the Premier, if the quiet diplomacy has not worked, let us have a public meeting. Let us get at it--make a suggestion.

* (1550)

Mr. Filmon: As much as I support fully the position of the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the head tax, I do not think this has been quiet diplomacy. I have read some pretty serious stuff about the meetings that have been held in the Filipino community and the Italian community and the Portuguese community with the federal members of Parliament. I guess the difficulty is that the federal members of Parliament are allowed by the media to get away by saying that we disagree with our government's position on it. I mean, the only test of whether or not they disagree is whether or not they would vote against their government in showing their displeasure with that policy. The fact is that they have not, and I agree with him that they do not deserve any credit for saying that they disagree with the policy if they are not doing their utmost to change the policy.

Mr. Doer: I appreciate the Premier’s comments. I am just saying let us set a date here in this Legislature in the next couple of months, let us invite all the members of Parliament to that forum, let us have some members of the community that directly work with immigrants and know the impact of this policy, and we could have a few minutes’ presentations from all three political parties here, and we can have some presentations from the people in the community and let us get some backbone with the members of Parliament about what they are going to do back in Ottawa. I think we need results, and I am making that recommendation to the Premier. I will leave it with him.

I will move on to another topic. I finally just want to ask one last question of the Premier. The Manitoba Telephone System. [interjection] I am dialling the Premier here. [interjection] I am on the Internet; so is he.

An Honourable Member: He is going to hang up on you.

Mr. Doer: There he goes--foghorn. You are going to be in a whole new world now; that kind of Ed McMahon cadence of yours now just will not play on the Internet the same way.

We, of course, raised the question of the Manitoba Telephone sale with the Premier last December. Does the Premier feel he has an adequate mandate from the public, given the fact that before the election, during the election and after the election, he refused to--he did not state that--well, before the election certainly and during the election, he did not present the policy of privatizing MTS as a policy of the government that he was seeking a mandate for?

Mr. Filmon: No, Mr. Chairman, I can say unequivocally that we did not have privatization of Manitoba Telephone System under active consideration or under consideration at all at that time. In fact, I recall the irony of it was that I was with quite a few media one day at lunch time at the food court at Portage and Main, the Trizec underground food court, and there were a number of employees from Manitoba Telephone System from, I guess, the Bestlands Building across the street. They would be young professionals, I would gather, by their active discussion that I had with them. They were urging us to consider privatizing the telephone system, giving me reasons why, and I was arguing with them that I did not think it was an appropriate policy. This was during the election campaign.

Subsequent to that, of course, we got an analysis of risk, I think it was termed, from the Crown Corporations Council that pointed out to us a number of matters that I have stated publicly since we have been engaged in the review that is ongoing. Among other things, they said what had been regarded as a natural monopoly by Sir Rodmond Roblin at the time that he made a public ownership of the Manitoba Telephone System was no longer even close to a monopoly, that over 70 percent of their revenues were now derived in a field in which they were in direct competition for those revenues with primarily private sector corporations.

They pointed out that this is the field of most rapidly changing technology in the world today and therefore the kind of decision making that has to prevail in order to keep up with change is a form of decision making that is not available under public ownership. In other words, middle management seeing an opportunity would have to convince upper management, upper management would have to convince the board, the board would have to convince the minister responsible, the minister responsible would have to convince cabinet, and cabinet, ultimately, if it required a change in the act--because getting in to new technology fields and other areas, for instance, such as Saskatchewan Tel is doing--ultimately requires bringing a bill to this Legislature and that could be a process, all told, from beginning of an idea to available policy change, could be a year. Under those circumstances, their market opportunities would disappear before they even got permission to go ahead with it. The bottom line, of course, is that all the while as they are in this more and more competitive environment and less and less able to keep up with new shifts and changes because of their cumbersome decision-making process, we have $850 million of taxpayers’ investment at risk in the corporation.

So that is the whole basis upon which a review is currently ongoing as to the recapitalization of the telephone system and whether that recapitalization continues to be in a form of public ownership or some hybrid of that. Whether it is privatized, that will ultimately be the decision that government will have to take and, clearly, any significant change would require legislation. So I guess the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues will become aware of it very, very quickly when the decision is made.

Mr. Doer: The Premier and I can debate a long time about our different visions of telecommunication.

I just have a couple more points. Can the Premier tell us the timing of the decision and is he saying it will require legislation?

Mr. Filmon: I am saying that if a decision were made to privatize, my understanding is it would require legislation, and I would hope that the decision would be made, probably within the next couple of months, certainly the sooner, the better, because I do not want to leave the debate hanging, and I do not want to leave people who are concerned about what way the corporation will go in the future to be left not knowing for much longer.

Mr. Doer: Is the Premier then saying--if he says his understanding is that legislation will be required, so we will have, at minimum, public hearings through the legislative process in terms of the decision, because you have already got the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities opposed to this decision of the government, as the Premier knows. Many rural communities are quite worried about it.

I do not disagree that times have not changed. I know my own experience in cellular telephones, that we could establish competition at the retail end with the Order-in-Council that we signed, but at least we had the network that was paid for by the telephone company utilized for revenues so that we had the best of both worlds. We had competition at the retail end, and we had revenues flowing to the publicly owned corporation for use of the information highway that they had built at the public level.

So I would like to ensure that--if the Premier is saying that there is going to be legislation prior to the sale, then that will suffice--and I think he said that a minute ago--in terms of our questions on public hearings.

Do the Liberals have any more concerns?

I am willing to pass the lines of the Premier’s Estimates.

* (1600)

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): The item that has been under debate at the present time has been item 2.1(b) of the report of the Manitoba Estimates.

The line in particular is 2.1(b) Management and Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,852,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $416,300--pass.

The next item for consideration is found in paragraph (c) Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $332,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $66,400--pass.

The next item for consideration is (d) Government Hospitality $10,000--pass.

The next item for consideration is (e) International Development Program $450,000--pass.

The last item to be considered for the Estimates for the Department of Executive Council is item 1.(a), the minister’s salary. At this point, we would request that the minister’s staff leave the table for consideration of this item.

The item for consideration has been the minister’s salary, (a) Premier and President of the Council’s Salary $40,400.

Mr. Doer: The Premier knows my position on treating MLAs, the Leader of the Opposition, cabinet ministers and the Premier in a similar fashion to what we are expecting of the rest of the public service. I have asked him that question before, that the wage be frozen for us in a similar manner. I still maintain that position that we have stated in the House, and we are pursuing that. I want the Premier to know that we will be pursuing that position at the Legislative Assembly Management Committee.

Mr. Filmon: At the risk of getting into a dustup at the end of my Estimates, I point out to the Leader of Opposition that he has said to me personally on a variety of occasions that he would not make an issue of MLAs’ salaries, that he believed we are all underpaid in accordance with any comparisons that are made either across Canada or vis-à-vis other people in society. He has indicated that he knows we are all underpaid and that he believes we all deserve to be recognized to a greater extent and that he would never be in a position where he would fight any reasonable presentation or proposal with respect to salaries being set for MLAs.

He and I talked at length about setting up an independent mechanism for setting those salaries, taking into account the fact that cabinet salaries were not adjusted for 15 years, and taking into account the fact that we were giving up the one-third tax free portion, taking into account the fact that there were reductions in expenses, particularly for transportation needs for MLAs and there was a removal, entirely, of an unfunded pension that had been roundly criticized. A number of other downward adjustments--and, you know, he can now change his position and want to make political hay over this and say that it is a matter of principle, but I would just tell him that I remember very well many discussions he and I have had over the last decade or more on this issue.

Mr. Doer: I just want to put on the record a couple of major points. One is, I did agree with the Premier that we should establish an independent commission. I did agree with the former Leader of the Liberal Party and the Premier on the participation on that committee. I did think that the public should have a right to decide what would be in that committee’s report. I did say, and we all said, that we would agree to what the findings were on pensions, on severance, on minister’s salary, Premier’s salary and on MLAs’ salaries, and we would be bound by that report. That is not in contention.

What is in contention is the automatic increases that came in after that report that were a couple of percent last year and again this year. That is why we thought it was wrong for our secretaries in our offices to be getting a 2.5 percent decrease last year while we were getting an increase. We think it is similarly wrong this year to get a 1.1 percent increase when our own secretaries and staff in this building are getting a decrease.

Now I know the government can still adjust the salaries because they are still in negotiations with their own employees so, yes, I agree with the Premier on the Fox-Decent process. I thought it was a good one. Yes, I agreed that we should have somebody else decide our salaries and we did, but I do not think that we can take an automatic increase this year and that is our point of departure, and so we just agree to disagree. We will take it to LAMC. The government can do what it wants at LAMC. I am just saying there is a difference between the Fox-Decent report and our commitment to it and subsequent increases that came in.

Mr. Filmon: There is also a difference between the comments that he has made to me on numerous occasions on a personal basis that said he did not think, and he used the term, that we ought to put on hair shirts and cut back our salaries when we already are the lowest paid in Canada, and we continue to be very much less remunerated than comparative salaries across the country for legislators or for cabinet ministers and comparative salaries vis-à-vis the rest of society. But he is entitled to change his mind and he can put forward whatever he wants, but I can say that in principle he has very much moved away from where he was in many discussions that we have had in the past.

Mr. Doer: In principle, I supported the Fox-Decent committee. [interjection] Well, you know, we moved the motion last year that went through our caucus and that I agree with, and I asked you a question last week about it--

Mr. Filmon: Make your politics. Go ahead.

Mr. Doer: Well, this is not politics.

Mr. Filmon: It is pure politics, and you know it.

Mr. Doer: Well, I disagree with the Premier. I think he is requiring--now, we do not know what is going to happen with the rest of the public service. The Premier is in negotiations, I suppose, with them but I stand by the motion that we made last year in LAMC, and I stand by the proposal we made to the Premier last week in Question Period.

I also stood with the Premier in the election campaign on the Fox-Decent report because we had all agreed to it and I was committed to it. We did not say that we were going to lower the recommendations from the Fox-Decent report before the election or during the election, but subsequent raises have come out since that report and I want to delineate both of these things I believe were different, and I am saying that to the Premier today and I will say it tomorrow.

* (1610)

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): The item under discussion has been 1.(a) Premier and President of the Council’s Salary, $40,400--pass.

Resolution 2.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,168,100 for Executive Council, General Administration, for the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1997.

This completes the Estimates for the Department of Executive Council. The next set of Estimates that will be considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates for the Department of Health. The committee will recess to facilitate the change of committee.

The committee recessed at 4:11 p.m.