Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Of course, the Conservative Party and the Filmon team, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) promised during the last election campaign that if elected they would not sell our publicly owned telephone system. Regrettably, the Premier has broken this promise and has repeatedly refused to provide information to the people of Manitoba and to this Chamber. In fact, we found out yesterday that on June 10, 1996, the telephone system secretly applied to the CRTC for a special rate factor dealing with the new change in status of taxes, capital and other factors.

I would like to ask the Premier why this government kept this information secret from the people of Manitoba. Is it in contradiction of his promise that there is no difference between a publicly owned corporation and a private corporation? Would the Premier today table on behalf of all Manitobans the analysis to deal with future rate impact, future job impact, future investment impacts so that all Manitobans can know what the material is, not just the select few in the Tory cabinet?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Firstly, this was hardly a secret application since it was made by the Stentor group of companies that represent all of the telephone companies in Canada. So there was no effort on anybody's part in any way to prevent that information since the CRTC is a public organization and that information was well available to the public.

There was no application for any special increase with respect to any rate changes because it was said very clearly in the application that there is no evidence to support any rate changes. The fact of the matter is, they left open the possibility that they could come back to deal with any changes that might occur, whether those changes be increases or decreases to the rates, as a result of the outflow from privatization.

With respect to the continued suggestions--and I reject all of the preamble that is put on the record by the member opposite. When he raised that issue several weeks ago in this House, a number of so-called experts in the field were asked to comment on the allegations that he made in this House on October 2.

I quote from an article in the Winnipeg Free Press of Thursday, October 3, and since it was in the Free Press I assume that it is accurate. In response to the suggestion that he made at that time about rates increasing, it says here: "But telecommunications experts say the NDP argument is 'nonsense'--local rates will continue to climb throughout Canada regardless of ownership."

* (1350)

Quote: "'It's got nothing to do with public or private,' said Iain Grant of the Yankee Group, a telecommunications consulting company in Ottawa."

Then further it says: "Eamon Hoey of consultants Hoey and Associates in Toronto, doesn't buy what the NDP is saying.

"'That's nonsense,' Hoey said. 'It's difficult to comprehend how the NDP could say that.'

"Hoey said the CRTC applies the same criteria to both public and private telephone companies when deciding on rate increases."

Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have gone through this issue over and over and over again, and there is certainly plenty of expert advice that contradicts everything that is being said by members opposite.

Mr. Doer: I asked the Premier to table all the impact studies that they have available to them for rates, for investment, for jobs, and the Premier continues to stonewall this House and the people of Manitoba in his headlong approach to breaking his election promise to the people of Manitoba.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the CRTC document that is filed from the Manitoba Telephone System said that the MTS company is unable to assess or estimate with certainty the financial or cost impacts. The Premier is saying that they have cost impacts and there will be no change from the public nonprofit corporation to a private corporation. I would simply challenge the Premier today to commit to Manitobans, there will be no rate increase on the basis of moving from a public nonprofit corporation to a private corporation, and if there are rate increases and this Premier has broken his promise, he should commit himself today to resign as Premier of the province of Manitoba for again breaking his word.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, as has been indicated, financial impacts could include revenue increases that would assist the telephone system in keeping down its rates or even reducing its rates. There is a whole series of variables that will be taken into account, and we believe as we have said before that the net result will not result in an increase in rates.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I note the Premier did not give his commitment on the issue of rate increases based on a private corporation.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the prospectus is leaking out across the newspapers and province. I suppose it is kind of ironic when the rate applications are not made public and the investors' interests are made public with quite a splash in terms of the priorities of this government. Time and time again, people are asking about the impacts.

I would like to ask the Premier two questions: Is there any information on rate increases moving from a public corporation to a private corporation in the prospectus, including the secret rate application withheld from the people by this Premier, and will this Premier agree today to give the people who have been coming to the hearings day in and day out a commitment to have a plebiscite to make the final decision on the sale of Manitoba Telephone System? You broke your election promise; the people feel that they have a right to have a democratic decision on their telephone system. Will the Premier today agree to a plebiscite to deal with the need of people to have democracy for their Crown corporations?

* (1355)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker--oh, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sorry. [interjection] No, they do not look alike.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the best evidence that we have about impacts of rates between publicly and privately owned telephone utilities in Canada is to examine the same rate category for the same size of community and service area among the provinces of Canada today, comparing those that are publicly owned and those that are privately owned.

Of course, we have only two examples today of publicly owned utilities, one of which happens to be the Manitoba Telephone System, but if you take those both medium and small exchanges, for instance, Rate Group 2, which are medium-sized exchanges, and look at the same size of community calling area across all of the provinces, you find some interesting comparisons. You find, for instance, for Rate Group 2, that the residential service rates for an individual line in Manitoba are $13.90 per month, and you compare it to the same category in the provinces right across Canada and you find that in that category the rates are cheaper in British Columbia under private ownership, that the rates are cheaper in New Brunswick under private ownership, that the rates are cheaper in Quebec under private ownership, that the rates are cheaper in Ontario under private ownership.

Then if you go to Rate Group 1, which are even smaller communities, and you take the same size community calling area in all of these provinces in Canada, you find for that group the residential individual line service rate in Manitoba is $12.75 and you find that the rates are cheaper in Newfoundland under private ownership, in British Columbia under private ownership, in Quebec under private ownership and in Ontario under private ownership. So under those circumstances--and I might say that under public ownership in both cases, in Saskatchewan the rates are higher. So the fact of the matter is, as I have said before--

An Honourable Member: Are you saying lower rates? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. Filmon: No. They are lower under private ownership right across Canada, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am saying to you that in half the provinces under private ownership they are lower and in half the provinces under public and private ownership they are higher. So, as I have said before, public and private ownership is not the issue when CRTC makes their decision. That is what experts have said time and time again.

* (1400)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): It is becoming increasingly obvious to anyone in this province that the government's handling of the sale of MTS is nothing short of a fiasco and is in fact probably more aptly described as being scandalous. After saying they would not sell it off, we are now seeing the same investment brokers, who recommended the sale and were paid $300,000 to do that, now working on a prospectus that has been leaked all over the--why do they not call it a leak when it is all over the front page of the Free Press?

I want to ask the Premier if he has determined who leaked the prospectus and whether he will take action to deal with one of only two sources that there are: either out of this government and this minister or out of the same three investment bankers who are being paid to sell this off. Will he explain how this document was leaked all over the front page of the paper?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Deputy Speaker, first, a number of things that can and should be referred to, and that is that the information contained within an article again in the Winnipeg Free Press, that information is based on knowledge that has been conveyed apparently to a reporter or reporters and we have no idea how that information would be conveyed.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

I might say, having contacted the Securities Commission this morning because this is something that of course comes under the purview and the regulatory authority of the Securities Commission, the Securities Commission say that they cannot comment at this time as to whether or not a prospectus was leaked and therefore whether there has been a violation. They further confirm that the prospectus that is presumably referred to has not been filed or received by the commission, so the commission therefore cannot make judgments based on the newspaper article. As far as they are concerned, there is no prospectus and the information in the article is not based on fact.

The commission, however, if provided with hard facts regarding any violation, has the ability under Section 22(1) of The Securities Act to order an investigation as deemed expedient. They believe it is premature at this point to undertake an investigation, but they are inquiring with potential sources of information both within the Investment Dealers Association and within the media that have referred to this information.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, this is absolutely incredible. We have an advance copy of the prospectus that is all over the major newspapers and the Premier--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson is, as I understand, on his first supplementary question which requires no preamble.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I am asking the Premier--and the buck stops with the Premier--whether he can indicate whether he has done any investigation to determine whether the minister and this government leaked the information, whether the brokerage firms leaked the information, in either case which would lead to, first of all, firing the brokerage firms for the confidentiality violation of that and possibly firing the minister as well, who, either through incompetence or through the deliberate leaking of this information, has short-circuited not only this Legislature and the people of Manitoba but the Securities Commission. When will the Premier take action to deal with this tainted share issue?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I am sure you will appreciate the irony of this particular member who for days on end has been demanding some of this information be made public that was in the prospectus, and I indicated that information contained within a prospectus could not be made public by the government. Now he is complaining that information may have been made public, accepting blindly that there is a prospectus.

The fact of the matter is that to my knowledge there is absolutely no way this information has come from government. This is not something that we would do, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Ashton: As a final supplementary, I want to ask the Premier, will he guarantee to this House and the people of Manitoba that, once it is determined where this leak came from, he will take action and that, as a minimum, he will fire the investment brokers who recommended the sale of MTS, who now are the lead brokers in the sale of it, are producing the prospectus, and if there is any indication of either culpability from the minister in terms of incompetence in having that released or deliberately leaking it, will he also guarantee to this House that he will remove that minister as well, that he will demand that somebody is responsible for once again the kind of tainted scandalous dealings we are seeing with our publicly owned telephone system that should not be sold off?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, the Manitoba Securities Commission has indicated that no prospectus has been received or filed and that no prospectus to their knowledge exists in final form. So it is appropriate that they handle any inquiries into this matter because it is their legislation and it is their integrity that would be put at risk if such a thing were available, and that is the legislation that governs.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, over a month ago, on September 18, I asked the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) to review the Dorothy Martin case in The Pas to determine if the proper charges were laid.

I would like to ask the First Minister whether or not he felt or whether or not he can report to this House if the minister did follow that recommendation we made.

Today, over 200 people travelled from Moose Lake and other communities in northern Manitoba to demand justice from this government. What commitment can the Premier make in ensuring that the Justice minister sees that that is found in this matter?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the minister. I understand that this is a matter that is currently under investigation and charges have been laid. I will leave the remaining details to the Minister of Justice to provide for the member for Rupertsland.

* (1405)

Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I would also like to ask the Premier why his Justice minister did not do anything in the past two months when we first raised the issue, forcing these people to travel hundreds of miles to simply get her attention.

Mr. Filmon: The Justice minister, I know, did indeed through her department ensure that an investigation was undertaken and the RCMP, I am given to understand, are currently in the process of accumulating evidence, much of which is very detailed, and that is a process that is underway. Until that is completed, then we will not have all of the final information, and because some charges have been laid and others may occur as a result of the investigation, I do not think that we can take this any further at the moment until all the information is available.

Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the First Minister whether or not the Justice minister and her department officials--if the same treatment would prevail if we were talking about the accused being an Indian person.

Mr. Filmon: Absolutely, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, my questions are directed to the First Minister, as well. The First Minister is fully aware of the events surrounding the death of Helen Betty Osborne, the amount of time it took for the authorities to bring the murderers to trial and then to have only one of the four convicted, and the subsequent three-year, $2-million AJI, whose report was finished five years ago and since then absolutely nothing has been done to implement the recommendations.

I would like to ask the First Minister to advise this House as to how long the Dorothy Martin family will have to wait for justice.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the member knows full well the answers have been given to him with respect to the considerable number of recommendations from the AJI that have already been acted on and implemented, and there are dozens and dozens of them that have. Having said that, in response to his question, all we want is to ensure that justice is done and justice is seen to be done with respect to the Dorothy Martin case. The department will take whatever time is necessary to ensure that that happens. The last thing that any of us want is for proceedings to take place without proper evidence, without proper investigation, proceedings that would fail to establish and carry out justice.

Mr. Lathlin: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask this Premier if he will listen, once and for all, to the concerns of aboriginal people like the Dorothy Martin family and do something to ensure that justice is done.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that the Justice department will ensure that everything possible is done to bring justice to this case and to carry it out to the fullest extent, and that is the process that is currently underway.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, my final question is again to the First Minister. Since the current Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) has shown a total lack of interest in aboriginal justice issues as demonstrated in this case and many others, will the Premier act now to replace her with someone who will finally care about justice throughout Manitoba and not just care about photo ops?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I reject that rather partisan and disrespectful approach to this House and to the minister and the justice system, but I will say to the member opposite that dozens of the recommendations of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry have in fact been implemented and the Minister of Justice is committed where it is feasible and reasonable to do so to carry out the various recommendations contained in that inquiry.

* (1410)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the Premier. Today all Manitobans own the Manitoba Telephone System, and once we see Bill 67 passed, the privatization of MTS, we are going to see a select few ultimately owning the Manitoba Telephone System. The government no doubt will see individuals that have the internal wealth to be able to purchase the shares. There are some Manitobans that are going to be provided, from what we understand, interest-free loans to purchase some shares.

My question to the Premier is: What is the Premier doing to ensure that all Manitobans are going to be treated equally and fairly to ensure that they all have the opportunity to buy into Manitoba Telephone System?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, there will be many different thoughts about investment in the Manitoba Telephone System, but certainly our intention is, and the intention of the process is, to allow as broad as possible an ownership within the Manitoba Telephone System, including ways in which there will be incentives for Manitobans to be able to invest in it and a preference given to Manitobans who wish to invest in it. In both those cases we believe that they will be significantly attractive that people will certainly give serious consideration.

Having said all of that, I just remind him that part and parcel of anything like this is not only ownership but risk taking, and at the current time, the Manitoba Telephone System has never paid a dividend to any taxpayer or ratepayer in Manitoba and they owe $800 million of debt which they have guaranteed.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, with a supplementary question.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the Premier should be aware that low rates are a form of dividend. The question to the Premier: Individuals that are on fixed incomes, whether it is pension or unemployed or other individuals that would like to have some opportunity possibly to buy into MTS, when we have some Manitobans being provided an opportunity more so than other Manitobans, is that not a sense that maybe something needs to happen to ensure that there is some equity in the sale of MTS, that maybe it should not just be the select few that have the opportunity? Does the Premier acknowledge that there are many inequities that do need to be ironed out before he sells MTS?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the point that is made by the member for Inkster and that is why, as I pointed out earlier, in Rate Group 2--and I can talk about every one of the rate groups of the Manitoba Telephone System--but in the comparison between those communities of a similar size in Rate Group 2 in our province, for instance, there are people in four other provinces in which that telephone company is privately owned who are receiving precisely that dividend of lower rates than they would pay in the same rate group in the same size community in Manitoba, both in Rate Group 2 and in Rate Group 1. So he is making the point and that is that with private ownership there could necessarily or possibly be even lower rates.

The difference is not based on whether or not it is publicly or privately owned because, in some cases, privately owned companies charge higher rates; in other cases, they charge lower rates. So whether it is publicly or privately owned does not guarantee that people are going to get the dividend at low rates.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I am not going to cherry-pick like the Premier has chosen to do but rather to put the question quite simply to the Premier, how is he ensuring that Manitobans are being treated in an equal fashion, that all Manitobans are being provided the same opportunities in order to be able to purchase into MTS? How are they going to be allowed to buy back on what they already own today?

Mr. Filmon: What they own today is $800 million of debt in a company that has never paid them a dividend in all of its years of public ownership. What they own today is a company that is in the highest risk area of any field in the economy because it is the most rapidly changing field of technology in the entire world and so the risks are very substantial. Those risks have led many, many people in many different countries of the world--within the last year alone places like Indonesia and Netherlands have privatized their telephone system after close to a century of public ownership because of precisely these reasons, the tremendous risk and the requirement for immense input of capital to try and keep up with a very rapidly changing field of technology.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, the Premier knows that under the Manitoba Securities Commission act there are two ways to offer securities. One is through a prospectus of full disclosure document which this Premier has said does not yet exist and has not been filed. The other way to offer securities is through an initial memorandum of offering.

Will the Premier clarify for the House whether in fact the Manitoba Securities Commission has approved and issued an initial memorandum of offering, a lower level of disclosure that in fact is required as a prospectus and that is the document that has been shown to the press and leaked and is causing confusion?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I note from reading the article that it does not refer to a document that was obtained by the newspaper, so I am not sure what he is referring to. In regard to the rest of the substance of his question, I will take that as notice.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, this is incredible. Stockbrokers are calling people--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Crescentwood, to pose a supplementary question.

Mr. Sale: Will the Premier confirm that it is illegal and a serious offence, Madam Speaker, to market securities in this province without either a prospectus issued by, approved by the Manitoba Securities Commission or an initial offering memorandum issued by and approved by the same body?

Will he at least confirm that the law is the law in Manitoba?

Mr. Filmon: I am happy to confirm that, Madam Speaker.

* (1420)

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, dissembling seems to know no bounds.

Will the Premier confirm that stockbrokers in Manitoba who are offering their clients stocks by phone in the Manitoba Telephone System's new company are doing so on the basis of an approved memorandum, initial memorandum of offering? Will he confirm that so the public at least knows they are not being flimflammed?

Mr. Filmon: I will have to investigate the preamble of the member's question, and so I will take it as notice.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Mr. John Reimer, a neighbour to the minister, has been part of an intensive federal-provincial investigation into the sale of illegal animal parts. Despite extensions from the Crown based on growing evidence of a ring of illegal trade in animal parts, investigation was stopped in March of this year.

On March 25, Chief Enforcement Officer Dave Purvis resigned his position citing ministerial interference in the case against John Reimer.

Why did this minister interfere with the Crown's directions not to lay charges until this investigation--which is potentially one of the largest wildlife investigations in Canadian history. Why did he do that before it was complete?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, as usual, the member's facts are totally wrong. Mr. Purvis is working for the Department of Natural Resources. Charges have been laid in the John Reimer case, and the case is before the courts right now.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Dauphin, with a supplementary question.

Mr. Struthers: What did the minister say to prompt his chief enforcement officer to write to this minister stating: I find your request, in my opinion, to be interference with the investigation and the process to justice. I cannot perform my duties and follow conflicting directions, and I therefore, under duress, submit my resignation?

Madam Speaker, I will table the letter for the House's perusal.

Mr. Driedger: Madam Speaker, I would like to have a copy of that letter, but I want to re-emphasize what I said before. Mr. Purvis is working in the same capacity as he was working and has always continued to work in that capacity.

Related to the case, charges have been laid and it is before the courts right now.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): A new question to the Premier (Mr. Filmon): Given that this minister has halted a major federal-provincial investigation involving up to 300 charges under federal and provincial wildlife acts, given that this minister's neighbour's charges have been reduced to only eight of these offences, given that the chief enforcement on this case has been replaced by a former special assistant to this government, given that this whole process of justice has been circumvented in this case, will the Premier fire the Minister of Natural Resources and bring some credibility to this department?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I have absolutely nothing to hide in this particular case. I am prepared to bring documentation forward where my professional people who lay the charges, together with the Attorney General's department, looked at all the issues that were involved and condensed it to charges that they felt were applicable and that they could make stick, instead of having charges like having a spare in the deepfreeze, which was an exaggeration, but that is exactly what happened between the AG's department, my enforcement people and the investigative team, including the federal people, combined this thing and went forward with what they thought was the best approach in terms of getting convictions out of it, and that case is before the courts right now.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Brandon East, with one very short question.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Not long ago, I placed a one-time ad in the Brandon Sun asking a straightforward question with no commentary, whether the readers were in favour of selling the Manitoba Telephone System, and the response was significant. I received nearly 400 replies, with 99 percent indicating that they did not want to sell MTS. In fact, some wrote on the form that they vote Conservative, they are not NDP. They wrote that on the form and they do not want to sell it. So in view of--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Leonard Evans: This is from Westman. This is the Westman area, not Brandon.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Brandon East, to pose his question now.

Mr. Leonard Evans: The respondents were from the Westman area. In view of this and other information showing that the majority of Manitobans are opposed to this sale, will the Premier now withdraw Bill 67 and go to the people to find out for himself just where Manitobans stand on this issue?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I am sure that Ross Martin and Errol Black have writer's cramp, but I will say this--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister, to complete his response.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, given that there are 200,000 people who live in Westman and given all the misinformation the member for Brandon East has put on the record about the privatization of Manitoba Telephone System, I am surprised that only 400 people believed him.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The Premier of all people talks about misinformation. He is the one that said they would not sell off the Manitoba Telephone System. I would ask you to ask him to withdraw that and apologize to the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) who is doing one thing this government has never done, that is ask the people of Westman how they feel about the sale of MTS.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order.

Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.