Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): This section of the Committee of Supply will be dealing with the Estimates for Executive Council.

We will begin with a statement from the First Minister.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Chairperson, as is customary, I would like to begin by welcoming you and congratulating you for the important responsibilities that you are undertaking as Chair of the Committee of Supply. It is sometimes an arduous responsibility, but I know that all members join me in wishing you well.

I have already congratulated the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), but I am pleased to repeat those congratulations to them on their re-election. I am delighted to see both of them back, but of course on that side of the House. I am even more delighted that it is on that side of the House.

A tradition seems to be developing that Executive Council Estimates are the first to be examined in committee. I did not realize it was a tradition until the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) told me last evening that it was a tradition. I asked why my Estimates were coming up first, and he said it was tradition. I appreciate being part of a tradition and look forward to continue this opportunity to exchange our views on the philosophies and the principles and the goals and objectives that guide this government.

Having the lead-off position allows me to take note of the hard work and the long hours that went into the preparation of the Estimates, and I want to in particular note the work of the Treasury Board and particularly the secretariat of Treasury Board. I know that when we reach a period in fall they start to spend hours and hours and hours leading up to the Christmas break, and then immediately after, when many of the rest of us are taking a little bit of time off, they take long, long hours to complete the work of the Estimates. I thank them all for carrying what I believe is probably the heaviest workload within our government. Having served as chair of Treasury Board for four budget cycles, I know how much goes into it, and I appreciate the Saturdays, the evenings and the many, many extra hours that they put in to help meet some very difficult targets.

The Executive Council Estimates have not changed significantly this year. That is a pattern that we have maintained now through eight budget cycles. In fact, the Estimates total of $3,165,400 represents an increase of $6,700 or 0.2 percent. The staff year total for the department remains unchanged at 44. I make some comparisons, not for any purposes of casting any particular view on my predecessors, but I believe the number was 50 when we took office in Executive Council, so it continues to be below that number. Members will note that within the department the $450,000 allocated to International Development programming has also remained unchanged, and I wanted to draw members' attention to that fact because it contrasts with some of the dramatic decreases that the federal government has imposed on its funding for certain international agencies and activities.

* (1500)

Although our province's ability to contribute to international development is limited, I believe our efforts are important and worthwhile. For example, recently Manitoba was asked to provide some technical assistance to one of the new South African provinces. Many members of the House had the opportunity last week to meet with the delegation from the northwest province and to wish them well as they work to establish an effective democracy in their homeland. We will be following up on our initial contacts with assistance in several areas and will be pleased to keep members up to date on those activities.

We are also moving ahead to strengthen our co-operative relations with other jurisdictions around the world. Members may recall that during the Team Canada trade mission to China last fall, we were able to sign an important new bilateral economic co-operation agreement with Henan province, and that agreement is being followed up actively, as well as others.

Within Canada, we are also working to extend co-operative arrangements with the other provinces and the federal government. I am sure that the Deputy Premier and Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) will have more to say on the subject in the coming weeks, but we are very pleased that the interprovincial trade barrier reduction agreement appears to be heading smoothly towards its implementation date of July 1. The Deputy Premier has co-chaired the Internal Trade Ministers Committee for the last few years, having succeeded the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) when he was in that portfolio, and they have both provided excellent leadership, and I believe that members on both sides of the House can take considerable pride in the fact that Manitobans played such a large role in developing the agreement.

In fact, in seeking its approval, the chief negotiator was Art Mauro of Manitoba. In recognition of all of the efforts put in by Manitoba on this agreement, the secretariat for the agreement will be located here in Winnipeg, a decision that was endorsed by the other Premiers at the annual Premiers' Conference in Toronto last year.

Members will also be aware that the annual Western Premiers' Conference had been scheduled for May 29 to 31, but was postponed when an election was called in the province of Saskatchewan. It is my hope that the conference can be rescheduled for July or early August to permit western Premiers to discuss several important issues of concern to our region prior to the annual Premiers' Conference which this year will be held in late August in Newfoundland.

The western Premiers are particularly concerned about the dramatic changes the federal government is making to national agricultural and transportation policies while all provinces right across the country share similar concerns about the impact of federal transfer payment cuts and other offloading on our budgets.

We will also want to discuss the future of social programs. The role of the federal government in some of these programs is now becoming, at best, that of a junior partner and not a particularly credible or reliable junior partner at that. This is unfortunate, because Canada's national social programs are part of the fabric which unifies our country. At a time when unity remains a critical issue it is unfortunate, to say the least, that the federal government is undermining a vital unifying force through what I believe are some short-sighted decisions. I have made my concerns clear to the Prime Minister and to some of his cabinet colleagues, and I will continue to do so.

Before closing, I would also like to express my appreciation to the staff in Executive Council for their high quality, professional work. In fact, I believe that as a whole the public service of Manitoba is unequalled in its quality and its dedication. The people of Manitoba are fortunate to be served by the men and women whose work is described in these Estimates but whose contribution is seldom recognized in a personal way.

One of my government's objectives for the coming term is to move ahead as quickly as we can with the public service reform and management improvement initiatives which are now under way. We want to ensure that the staff who are responsible for carrying out the decisions of government and the Legislature have a better sense that their advice is being heard and that their efforts are highly valued. We want to work towards greater flexibility and greater accountability and to ensure that public servants have the tools they need to respond to the difficult challenges facing all governments everywhere.

I look forward to hearing the comments of the members opposite. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the First Minister for those comments. We will now have the traditional reply by the Leader of the official opposition party.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, and I will also pay tribute in a traditional way to the traditional role of the traditional Chair in the traditional spot in this Chamber and applaud him in the way I do traditionally on his appointment and reappointment to these very, very important responsibilities.

The Premier noted about this tradition. I think he started it with Premier Pawley, so he should be careful about starting traditions. They may tend--

Mr. Filmon: I may have to carry them out.

Mr. Doer: There are certain advantages to this, of course, from a time management perspective. It is always better to know when the Estimates are than not, and as he would recognize, predictability in time management is useful--for both of us I might add. I have to say that I do not just do it for his benefit, although I am very, very charitable on my thoughts to him, but it is also useful for some of the rest of us.

I want to talk, not a long time, about the opening statements. We want to mention a few things on the Premier's Estimates. We recognize the staffing level and spending level of the Executive Council is somewhat similar to the whole public service of Manitoba. It is one of the leanest public services. It has been one of the leanest Executive Council Estimates through different levels of government.

We note there are differences now in the Executive Council deployment of staff than there were previously. There are more Communications staff now than there was under the previous government, notwithstanding the criticisms that were made by the previous Leader of the Opposition--too previous I might say--and there are other deployments in various functions that fall under the role of federal-provincial relations that are contained within other departments.

The Ottawa office, for example, is a role of federal-provincial relations. It is on another Estimates line. So I think there are comparable considerations in terms of Estimates. Of course, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) knows that we have to always reconcile year by year in various departments where the deployment of staff are to get an apples-to-apples comparison, and we would so note.

There is also staffing that is in the I, T and T department for other functions that relate directly to the Premier's role in the economic areas of government, and, of course, those staff have a direct reporting relationship to the Premier even though their staffing salaries are contained in other departments.

The Premier noted the international affairs of Team Canada effort. I know that Premier Harcourt of British Columbia made that recommendation to the Premiers. I thought it was a good recommendation. I was disappointed that the premier of Quebec did not see fit to join that group, and I have listened to both our Premier and other Premiers from other provinces who thought that was a successful way to do business internationally, to have one team meeting with the various officials in a country like China. I would say that there were some difficulties or some criticisms of the whole issue of human rights, and I know that this is a difficult issue, whether it is in countries like Communist China and in countries that the Premier is dealing with, like Indonesia. I do not believe it is an either or.

* (1510)

I believe that we believe in democracy. We believe in the elimination of totalitarian regimes. Even though we want to trade with those countries and develop our markets, we also should never ever tire of our goals for democracy for the people living in those countries under the boots of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, and as peace-loving and democratic-loving nations. The Premiers that went on that trip--I was a touch disappointed in the either-or kind of delineation on trade. To me, you can trade and you can educate and you must deal with the human rights component. Yes, some people may be offended, but it is important after we recognize those young students that stood at Tiananmen Square in front of the tanks, in front of the military, in front of the dictatorship, some of whom are still in prison today for rights that we take for granted, that all of us across all political lines--I am not making this comment to this Premier, but all across all political lines--because all political parties were represented on the Team Canada group, that we cannot let those young people down that were in that square with such a powerful message for us on their freedoms and the freedoms that they want, that they aspire to enjoy.

I want to say that I am pleased the government has not cut the international affairs grants in this department in the International Development Program. The old saying is, you give a person a fish and they eat for a day; you teach a person to fish and they eat for a lifetime. I still believe in that whether it is here in Manitoba or internationally. I believe the more projects we can be part of with the very strong church and community groups that reside in our province, the wonderful organizations that we have of volunteers of men and women that work tirelessly in pretty challenging conditions.

I know the Premier (Mr. Filmon) visited some locations when he attended the environment summit in Rio, and I know that it is important for Manitoba to always look outward and use our great talent and skill of people to help other nations and other peoples get an economic base, get education, get health care and have a life of, hopefully, dignity and opportunity rather than some of the conditions that many of our projects are working under.

I do say that the federal government--I know there is a poll saying why give money out here if you are cutting back here in Canada. You know, we are an international country, and I know that you cannot--international affairs and international development is not an Angus Reid poll. It is a lifelong commitment to peace, democracy, freedom and the ability to be international in our approach and to deal with countries in a very fair way.

On the issue of federal-provincial relations, I was quite critical of the governments' negotiations on trade with interprovincial boundaries and barriers, and the Premier knows that. When the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) came back on a number of occasions sounding rather like Neville Chamberlain, I bring you peace in our time, I was very worried about the inability of provinces to deal with taxpayers' money enticing private corporations and bidding wars that would take place between the provinces for jobs with taxpayers' money. I think almost a year later from this so-called peace in our time agreement that the Deputy Premier brought back to this House, that we commented on had more holes than Swiss cheese, we see some practical examples that have not stopped the absolute, I think, waste of taxpayers' money and waste of our efforts by having provinces raided by other provinces with taxpayers' money.

I think it is wrong, and, again, I think the First Ministers have to come to grips with this. To have the episode where jobs were lost, UPS jobs were lost here in Manitoba, where jobs went to New Brunswick, paid for by taxpayers, the Premiers and government officials from one province were swooping in to places like British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and paying for jobs to be relocated to another province means that this so-called agreement is not very helpful.

I have been critical in the past. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) knows about my comments about Don Getty, where the tremendous amount of processing of beef was taking place because of their very, very charitable donations to the Pocklington Gainer's operation and the Cargill operation, which of course works against the Manitoba producer, Manitoba processing.

We have been critical of Saskatchewan and the Devine government for their investments in fertilizer plants that are in direct competition with the Simplot plant.

An Honourable Member: And now Romanow in the Cargill crushing plant, $68 million for 25 jobs.

Mr. Doer: Well, if that is the case, I would be critical of that too. I was critical of the Premier on GWE, but I also said that I talked about Sears in Saskatchewan and I talked about Federal Express in New Brunswick, a Liberal government, a Conservative government and a New Democratic government, and I think we have got to get this thing hammered down--no more money from taxpayers to bid.

We are not creating new jobs, we are taking jobs away from other communities, and at the annual meeting of these free enterprisers, they must be laughing in their martini glasses at what happens in these tough economic times when we have to use our money, our public money to subsidize so-called free enterprise and the market system to attract jobs and keep jobs in our own communities. [interjection]

Well, I was opposed to the $600,000 grant, but I have said the Sears operation, a lot of these telemarketing jobs are new, and I think we should just say no. I cannot understand why the Premiers, and they are all different political philosophies, but good people, why we cannot nail this down, why we cannot get an agreement.

I know the frustration I had when I was Minister of Urban Affairs dealing with Premier Bourassa with buses. Quebec had a so-called free trade policy on buses. Flyer could bid into Quebec equal to any other company. The only problem is, the Province of Quebec would not support a municipality with the 75 percent grant from the provincial government unless the bus was made in Quebec. I wrote him and even when we were out of government I continued to write him about this, which I informed the Premier of, and of course I believe that that is wrong.

So we do not think this trade agreement has achieved yet what it was purported to achieve, and the proof is always in the pudding in these agreements, not in the press releases, and we do not think the pudding is very strong, we think it is pretty mushy and not very helpful beyond some of the nice statements made about it.

In terms of federal-provincial relations, we will be raising a number of issues on programs that are dealt with by the federal government with the provincial government, including the health and post-secondary education, the whole issue of the military relocations, the reductions in procurement in the aerospace industry, airport privatization in Manitoba, CN privatization, the whole issue of reductions in jobs here in Manitoba, what its impact will be on the economy, the whole issue of the reductions in other programs in the federal budget. Of course, we will be raising the whole issue of the triple whammy in Agriculture: (1) major reduction and elimination of the Crow rate; (2) the pooling advancement and acceleration in terms of the Manitoba producer; and (3) the reduction in the some of the agricultural support programs, those on top of the reductions in research facilities here in Manitoba which belie the argument that this is an attempt to move from more direct-cash crops to the whole issue of value-added crop production.

* (1520)

I also believe, Mr. Chairperson, that I want to deal with one other issue in Manitoba here before we get into the line by line or into the more general discussions in the Premier's Estimates, but I think that I heard the Premier--we all say this in the Legislature, in election campaigns, but he talked a lot about decorum in the House. I think I expect feisty debate, and so does the Premier. I respect that, and I do not want to change that, but I think we all have to take a look at what happened last night. It was not our finest hour, and if this is only the first week after the new session is starting, I think we have all got to come to grips with our own--we all have a bit of thin skin perhaps, and we all have to take a look at the decorum in this House. I am quite worried about what happened last night, and as I say, I am not blaming anybody right now. We have already had that argument in the points of order raised, but perhaps all of us have a responsibility to deal with feisty differences, differences on policies.

Let us try, you know, to be careful about taking personal shots about individuals in the Chamber. I think there is a difference between disagreeing with policies or pointing out different discrepancies between policies, between action and policies, but I always think we should try to make sure that we do not disagree with each other on a personal level, we disagree with each other on policies, on differences, on discrepancies from promises that we all make or comments we all make. As I say, it was not our finest hour last night, and I say that collectively. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable Leader of the Opposition for his opening statement.

I would remind the members of the committee that debate on the Minister's Salary, item 1.(a), is deferred until all other items and the Estimates of this department are passed.

At this time, we invite the minister's staff to take their place in the Chamber.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, with leave, maybe I could just give brief opening remarks.

Mr. Chairperson: Somebody has just asked the staff to stay out for a minute. The honourable member for Inkster does not have official party status. Is there leave for the honourable member to make an opening statement?

An Honourable Member: Leave.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I thank both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition for granting me leave to say a few words in opening remarks. I must admit right from the up front that this is in fact somewhat of a challenge for me. I know that there are a number of different departments that are out there, and those departments and issues all have to be addressed in some way or another, at least from our perspective or from a Liberal perspective, if you will.

My intent is to try to concentrate on a few of those departments as opposed to trying to take responsibility for something that just really is not feasible. I have always found in the past, when I was assigned a new critic portfolio, that there is a bit of a learning curve. You tend to go through an Estimates period in which you learn a bit, and hopefully you are better equipped going into the next time we are inside the Chamber dealing with this particular department.

So hopefully members will excuse if I do not necessarily know the department as well as I possibly should know or the line of questioning that might be most appropriate for this particular portion of the Estimates. I wanted to comment, somewhat briefly, on some of the opening remarks the Premier has put on the record and acknowledge right up front, no doubt, the extreme dedication of time and resources that individual members--that put together the documents that we are going to be going over in the next 240 hours, Mr. Chairperson. I think that they do a phenomenal job.

I can recall hearing the former Minister of Finance talking about the idea of having multiyear budgeting, and I look forward to someday being able to stand inside the Chamber and to be able to address not only my comments on what the government is projecting to do in this particular fiscal year, but also some sort of a better projection in terms of what the following year would be like. The idea of a multiyear budgeting, I believe, is the best approach in dealing with the financial affairs of the province. Hopefully, we will see that movement in that direction. I am especially looking forward to the discussions with respect to intergovernmental relations, in particular federal-provincial relations.

The Premier makes reference to the Western Premiers' Conference, and out of that conference, no doubt, will come a number of items which we in the Prairies, if we can say, or this region, feel are important to western Canadians. I think, Mr. Chairperson, I believe, the Liberal Party believes that that is important that we do have some meeting which allows us to identify our priority issues in dealing with the federal government.

It is also important that we look in terms of what other provinces, other jurisdictions, in particular, let us say the Atlantic region, in terms of that whole idea of the integrations of regions and how governments might be able to work in hand in terms of trying to break down some of those other barriers that might be there. The Leader of the Opposition made reference to what happened in the province of Quebec with respect to busing and how many workers in the province of Manitoba were denied opportunities to be able to produce and manufacture what I would classify--no doubt everyone in this Chamber would classify it as world-class buses and provide them on an equal playing field to the province of Quebec.

I recall back in '86 when I attended a policy conference in Ottawa, Mr. Chairperson. One of the resolutions which I talked out on at that time was the whole idea of freer trade from within Canada. I believe that we need to move more towards that. That is why I was pleased when we had the internal trade committee. I think that we should take advantage of the responsibility that has been bestowed upon us in terms of the deputy chair of that particular committee and take advantage of that.

I think that this particular Premier has been given an opportunity once again on April 25 to take a leading position within the prairie provinces in terms of advancing the western Canada perspective, if you like. It is an additional responsibility which I am sure that the Premier is going to want to take. Along with that responsibility, Mr. Chairperson, I think that observers across the prairies, if you like, will be looking for a certain amount of statesmanship from the Premier in terms of trying to take more of the politics out of--and it is awfully difficult to take the politics out of some of the debates that no doubt occur. I think that in times we have seen that occur, and we have seen the results of that. The Premier made reference to Team Canada, and that is something in which there were parties from across Canada, all three major political parties participated. We have seen first-hand just how successful that particular trade mission was, and we look forward to many other results that come out of that particular trade mission.

So it shows that if in fact parties and, more so, individuals that are in the position to be able to have real influence are prepared to put some of the party politics at least at times to the side and to sit down and deal with the issue at hand, then and only then, I would argue, will we be successful in doing what the Leader of the Opposition has talked about in terms of getting rid of many of those barriers that are put into place.

Every day, and I accept it--I know it has happened in the past, and I might have even participated in it somewhat when we had the former Prime Minister being in Ottawa. I often termed it as being fed bashing. I think everyone is very familiar with the term of fed bashing.

* (1530)

Mr. Chairperson, I would anticipate that there is going to be a certain amount of that debate that might take a bit of a slight that it is anti-federal government. I only hope that it will not get overly, excessive--[interjection] The Premier says, even when it is due. I am sure that when it is due, it will definitely be there. The question, of course, is: When it is not due, will it continue to be there?

Mr. Chairperson, I would anticipate that if there are in fact those issues that surface in which we believe as a political party, albeit somewhat small and limited in our capacities inside this chamber. The provincial Liberal Party is quite prepared to express what we feel is in the best interests of Manitobans, but with respect to the federal-provincial relations, we believe ultimately that you can get a lot more accomplished through co-operation, and that does not necessarily mean backing down on important issues. One can still be a very strong advocate for the many different issues that are out there that the federal government will choose to deal with, which will have a significant impact on the province of Manitoba. As I indicated during my throne speech remarks, the Canadian national government also has to listen and respond to the Canadian public as a whole, much like we have to respond to Canadians that live within the province of Manitoba. In some cases, in particular when you have those intergovernmental relations, each Premier has a responsibility to look even beyond our own boundaries.

I am really looking forward to those discussions, in particular, discussions with respect to issues like immigration bilateral agreement, a question that I have raised, something that in principle I feel very strongly on. I am hoping that the Premier will be able to answer a number of questions in terms of what this government's actual approach to dealing with this particular agreement is. I give him advance warning, if you like. What I am hoping to receive from the Premier is a commitment more so on what Manitoba needs, what our requirements are. For example, our requirement is not to have 3.7 percent of whatever the federal government brings in in immigrants in any given year. That is not our requirement. What our requirement should be is what can Manitoba, as a province, sustain in terms of immigrants into the province, The different classifications and so forth, and that is the position which we should be taking to Ottawa. Other areas, of course, we will tend to disagree on.

Transfer payments, a very important issue, I am sure we will have a great deal of discussions with respect to transfer payments. Ultimately one has to look--and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) made reference to the federal government's junior role, I believe is what he said, and as we move on in time the federal government appears to be playing a lesser role. I remember the Charlottetown Accord debates and discussions that were out there. In fact, I was one of those that felt it was not necessarily in our best interest for a lot of the same reasons that I believe that the federal government does have a significant role to play.

I am very concerned about national objectives and standards and so forth within our social programs, whether it is through unemployment or health care or whatever might be out there. I look forward to some sort of a positive dialogue. I know it would be quite easy, of course, to say, well EPF funding is cut, and the health, and the federal government is bad and so forth. Yes, there was a cut in EPF funding. We are not going to deny that. Ultimately, what is it that we are going to do to ensure that the health care system in the federal government does continue to have a role to play? That is the type of dialogue I am hoping to encounter. Issues like the Air Command, issues like gun registration, these are the issues I welcome in terms of debate and would anticipate at times it might even potentially get somewhat lively, but I do believe that is important.

Interprovincial relations or intergovernment relations I believe also encounters possibly our junior levels of government, and I equally look forward, if that is the case, to discussions at that level. Again, Mr. Chairperson, I do appreciate the opportunity to give opening remarks on this department.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the member for Inkster for his opening remarks.

Mr. Filmon: While the staff are being invited in I just wanted to clarify a couple of issues from the opening comments, if I may, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Chairperson: Before they are invited?

Mr. Filmon: They can walk in while I am speaking. That is fine.

Mr. Chairperson: We will ask the staff to come in at this time.

Mr. Filmon: I just want to respond to the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Doer) comments about the so-called Neville Chamberlain peace-in-our-time accord in interprovincial trade barriers, and to let him know that it is not the news release that is at fault, it is his reading of the news release, if he did indeed read it, because the agreement has a number of stages to it. One of the final stages is the, what I call, destructive competition for investment section which is in there at Manitoba's insistence. But because of a lack of consensus and a lack of agreement on the part of many provinces, it is one of the latter stages of implementation of the agreement.

Also, the direct government procurement is stage one; Crown corporations and the MUSH sector are later stages, and the very final stage is destructive competition for investment. I might say that if it is filled with holes like Swiss cheese it is because there are two New Democratic provinces, both Saskatchewan and British Columbia, who did not want any part of this agreement to begin with and ultimately would only accept a very watered down version of it. Perhaps if there are other more, shall we say, broader-thinking administrations in place at future, we may get further with filling some of those holes, but he can thank his New Democratic colleagues, and I am sure that they would acknowledge that they had their own protectionist interests very much on the table throughout these discussions.

I might say to him as well in respect to his comments on the decorum in this House, that it cuts all ways, and I too do not believe that last night was our finest hour nor this afternoon's regurgitation because of the presence of media, Mr. Chairperson. But if he would like to check Hansard, he will find that deliberately and intentionally his colleague from The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) came here and laid the charge of racism, of racist policies on the record several times last evening, much to the applause of his colleagues, including the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) who walked over and shook his hand for having made those comments.

I ignored the comment a week ago and wrote it off as just so much political prattering, but the fact of the matter is if he is going to continue to make those allegations in the House without any evidence or substance on a regular basis, we are going to take him on every day and anybody else on your side of the House who does it. So if you want to improve the quality of the debate in this House, then you might talk to your own members and demonstrate a little leadership.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Would it be possible for the First Minister to introduce his staff at this time?

Mr. Doer: Well, Mr. Chairperson, I have not agreed to the staff coming in yet and I want to resond to the First Minister's statement. If the staff want to stay here, that is fine, because they have heard it before.

* (1540)

We have a couple of points. The Premier, of course, talking about the trade agreement in Canada, and I find that particularly interesting that he would again cite British Columbia and Saskatchewan when if he checks the records, there is nobody that has been 100 percent pure perhaps in this whole issue. When he looks at McKenna in New Brunswick, when he looks at Devine in Saskatchewan, when he looks at Getty in Alberta, the NDP governments have nothing to listen to a lecture from this Premier on this whole issue of corporate grants from taxpayers' money. I might point out to the Premier that it was Premier Rae that finally took on the Province of Quebec in terms of the whole issue of trades and employment and those issues. He was the one that had the backbone to take them on and have mobility provisions which are consistent with the Charter in force so that Francis Lankin and others could take on that province in a fair way.

There is a difference between economic development and corporate grants, and I believe that the Premier should recognize the difference. I believe, very importantly, that public money to raid jobs--rather than taking a shot at the Premier of British Columbia, one would have thought that he would have joined with the Premier of B.C. and Ontario and as the Premier of Manitoba when we lost the UPS jobs. So I am quite disappointed in the Premier's comments in that regard.

The Premier--and I mentioned the point about last evening. He came back with his rather bombastic comments about how he would deal with it with his hands on his hips in quite a challenging way. We are not afraid of debate, we not afraid of feisty debate and we will get involved in it.

I would point out that I recall Tom Denton used the term to describe the federal government's policies, Sergio Marchi's policies, as racist immigration policies. He did not call the federal minister a racist, and there is a distinction between a policy and an individual. I am using another example to illustrate our point.

I was in the House last night when the Premier made the comment in his seat to the member from The Pas.

An Honourable Member: Read Hansard.

Mr. Doer: I do not have to. I heard what the Premier said to the member for The Pas, and I was quite disappointed. I expect him to take his shots at me, and I was not disappointed last night. I am sure he will continue to do so on various things and that goes with the territory. But I was disappointed in the Premier last night, and he can--

An Honourable Member: That is a double standard. Oscar did not say anything, but--

Mr. Doer: I mentioned the example of Mr. Denton. He is a Conservative I believe who made his eloquent statements about the changed policy of the federal government. I am trying to use another example for the Premier, to look at it. We are not afraid of good, feisty debate in here and we are not going to be intimidated by the Premier's comments to us in his Estimates or any other time.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Did the First Minister wish to introduce his staff?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to introduce my staff who are my Clerk of the Executive Council, our senior deputy minister in government, Mr. Don Leitch; Chief of Staff, Mr. Taras Sokolyk; the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Jim Eldridge; and Karen Popp who is Director of Administration of Finance for the Executive Council.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. First Minister. The item before the committee is item 1.(b) Management and Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,853,700.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairperson, I believe that we usually deal with the whole set of Estimates. We have in the past have dealt with all the lines at the end.

Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee then to deal with all the Estimates as a whole? [agreed]

Mr. Doer: Thank you. Can the Premier again table today the list of staff and the classifications and salaries of all staff in his Executive Council line, the 44 staff that he discussed? I believe he has done that in the past.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairperson, yes, there are copies for the opposition at the Clerk's Office.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairperson, can the Premier indicate how many staff are in the Communications branch in the Premier's Office? Is it still the five that were there previously or has he reduced it down to the size that he criticized in the past?

Mr. Filmon: As it has been, I believe, all the way back to 1990, four professionals and two support staff.

The criticism that I made, for the edification of the Leader of the Opposition, was to the fact that there were over 200 Communications staff throughout government under the Pawley administration. That number has been reduced by approximately 75 overall by a concentration of staff in a central network that shows up to some degree in my Estimates.

Mr. Doer: Does the four staff include the co-ordinator of the Executive Council's Director of Cabinet Communications Secretariat?

Mr. Filmon: If the member is referring to Bonnie Staples, that is included in the four staff.

Mr. Doer: Can the Premier indicate who else is working in that department in the professional positions, please?

Mr. Filmon: It includes Ron Arnst, Roger Madis and Debbie Young.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairperson, what is the relationship that the Premier has established with the Communications branch of his office and duly elected and appointed cabinet ministers in dealing with the media? We often hear and often witness cabinet ministers not able to talk to the public through the media day after day until the, quote, Premier's staff has advised them. What is the relationship between the Premier's staff and cabinet ministers in terms of their ability to speak directly to the public?

* (1550)

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairperson, I categorically reject that he often hears that. That may be an excuse that is given by an individual from the media who makes that up. The fact of the matter is there is a co-ordination in terms of communications so that the Executive Council is plugged in on issues. The reason is--we are given examples of it every day in the Legislature when the member opposite, the member for Concordia insists on asking the Premier questions about issues that have to do with one of the minister's responsibilities. If I am expected to know the answers to those questions, then we have to have a communication linkage between Executive Council and each of the ministers.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairperson, are there job descriptions for the individuals as they relate to other cabinet ministers?

Mr. Filmon: None in written form.

Mr. Doer: How do the staff get a classification if there is no written job description from the Civil Service Commission?

Mr. Filmon: I am sure there are written job descriptions with duties to be as required, duties to be assigned, also as a catchall for all of the other responsibilities they carry.

Mr. Doer: Would that relationship with cabinet ministers to the Premier's staff be in that other duties as assigned category?

Mr. Filmon: Yes.

Mr. Doer: It is the first straight answer I have got from him in the last five years, so I was very happy to have it. Thank you. I am just kidding.

The classification of Director of Communications for the cabinet secretariat, the Order-in-Council was just signed recently deleting the previous incumbent, one Ms. Biggar and appointing the present incumbent, one Ms. Staples.

Could the Premier explain why, when Barb Biggar left a year ago, the paperwork took a year to conduct, and what were the circumstances around that?

Mr. Filmon: I am informed when an individual resigns from their position in the public service, that we do not pass an Order-in-Council revoking that appointment until we replace that person. As the member probably knows, it costs about $350 to produce and pass an O/C because of all of the various legal hands that it has to go through and clerical hands that it has to go through. We therefore waited until the replacement, who had been put in on an acting basis, was confirmed on a permanent basis, and that was a process that took about eight months.

Mr. Doer: So the Premier is indicating that the Order-in-Council paperwork for the position of co-ordinator of cabinet communications was appointed on an acting basis and then made permanent eight months after the departure of Barb Biggar?

Mr. Filmon: That is correct, and Ms. Staples remained at her existing salary which was lower than the salary as the co-ordinator of cabinet communications. She received that salary change only at such time as we made her in a permanent position.

Mr. Doer: Can the Premier indicate the role of the position of Director of Cabinet Communications on the awarding of advertising contracts in the direct provincial public service?

Mr. Filmon: Contracts are awarded by the departments in consultation with the Communications section which is located in the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship. Because of her overall role in terms of government communications, the co-ordinator of cabinet communications would have an advisory role from time to time on some of these issues.

Mr. Doer: Would the Premier indicate whether the advisory role is on the content of the ads or at the selection of the advertising firms that the government chooses?

Mr. Filmon: They are normally done on a proposal call basis. So the departments come up with their requirements, they receive technical advice from the Communications section in Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, and they might seek advice from the co-ordinator of cabinet communications on any matters pertaining to that. If the question is, does she have the final say on who is awarded the contract, the answer very simply is no.

Mr. Doer: Does the Director of Cabinet Communications have any role at all in the awarding of advertising contracts to various companies in Crown corporations, specifically the Lotteries Corporation and other Crown corporations that are relevant to the government's overall so-called message?

Mr. Filmon: Because of the talent and knowledge that is vested in the co-ordinator of cabinet communications she might be consulted on them, but the final decision is still that of the Crown corporations.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairperson, the huge issue of advertising and lotteries, would that not go for approval to the Premier's Communications staff and the cabinet through the responsible cabinet minister, or is that just left delegated to the Lotteries Corporation?

Mr. Filmon: It probably normally does not come to cabinet. It does not necessarily come to the Executive Council Communications Secretariat. There might be advice given from the Crown corporation to the minister responsible. He might be advised, but the final decision rests with the Crown corporation.

Mr. Doer: Were the Premier's Communications staff, director, involved in the awarding of contracts dealing specifically with the home renovations advertising campaign of last year's 1994-1995 fiscal year?

Mr. Filmon: I believe that was part of an overall plan that was accepted by cabinet or a committee of cabinet.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairperson, can the Premier indicate which advertising agency received the Home Renovation Program pursuant to the approval of cabinet?

Mr. Filmon: I believe it was Foster/Marks, but I can have that verified.

Mr. Doer: Can the Premier indicate how much money was spent on that home renovation contract?

Mr. Filmon: I do not want to avoid giving the information to the member, but clearly that is something that is in the hands of the department that awarded that contract. As I say, it was in a plan that I think was reviewed by cabinet because I recall having seen it. It is not something that is in my budget nor would I have any direct information on that without going through the minister.

Mr. Doer: Further to the role of the Director of Cabinet Communications, can the Premier indicate how many contracts were awarded in totality across the cabinet purview to Foster/Marks in this 1994-1995 fiscal year, which the Premier has stated has gone to either cabinet committee or cabinet.

Mr. Filmon: I could not find that information without going through all of the various departments and asking them who awarded contracts to that particular agency. I know that that would show up in the Public Accounts that will be available later this year and certainly all that detail will be there.

Mr. Doer: Are there any safeguards for the public to ensure that former senior members of staff from the Executive Council of the Premier are not involved in subcontracts from advertising companies that are obviously going before cabinet in terms of the Home Renovation Program? Are there any prohibitions to that?

* (1600)

Mr. Filmon: The conflict of interest legislation provides for a cooling-off period, I think it is referred to by some, for any senior staff who leave the employ of the provincial government, and if he is referring to any who have left in the past year or 18 months, I can tell him that they are all aware of the requirements of The Conflict of Interest Act and are abiding by it.

Mr. Doer: Were there any senior staff of the Premier hired by the advertising agency to do Home Renovations Programs as part of any subcontracts the advertising agency would have?

Mr. Filmon: Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Doer: Can the Premier take as notice that request to find that out, because it is questions that have been raised with us, and I think it is in the public interest to find out, given that the Province of Manitoba is spending a considerable amount of money with the Foster/Marks agency.

Mr. Filmon: Is he referring to a current employee or a former employee, and which employee is he referring to? I will take that information then and then attempt to respond to him.

Mr. Doer: Just to clarify to the Premier, I am just asking the question whether the former director of communications was involved from the Premier's Office. We cannot separate sometimes rumour from fact. I have no substantiation, it is just a lot of rumours out there in the advertising community. I would like to put those rumours to rest with a specific question. Has the Premier's staff been hired by advertising agencies like Foster/Marks that are getting fairly substantial contracts from the public purse?

Mr. Filmon: Because we are dealing with a direct allegation now of an individual I will say that direct allegation was made publicly by the media and I responded to it after investigating last year. The answer is no. That individual was not employed by the agency on work for the government of Manitoba, including the home renovation work that he refers to.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairperson, was the former director of communications involved in a contract with the beverage association of Manitoba in terms of its work with the provincial government on recycling policies?

Mr. Filmon: My understanding is she had a contract with the beverage association on policy advice and had no dealings with the provincial government on the matter.

Mr. Doer: Of course, the soft drink companies had a major fine waived by the provincial government. The individual that we have stated was in the employ of the government up until, I believe, March or April of 1994. Does the Premier feel that there is any discrepancy between the policies of senior staff of government and their departure time and their dealings with the provincial government in other related matters?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairperson, this is where we have to be careful not to put incorrect information on the record. The fine has not been waived.

Mr. Doer: Can the Premier indicate the--going by memory, and I will check my file before we come back in the Estimates--but I believe that there was a levy to the soft drink companies. Can the Premier indicate when that was paid?

Mr. Filmon: The status is that the fine has not been paid and it is subject to the current negotiations that are ongoing with respect to the establishment of the recycling program. There are certain charges, obviously, and levies that are being exacted, and the consideration is being given as to whether or not in return of the current agreement the fine will not be pursued, but that has not been decided.

Mr. Doer: Can the Premier indicate, again, the whole issue of the fine or the levy that was due a period of time ago. It is a substantial amount of money in terms of the policy announced by the provincial government. Can the Premier indicate with that amount of money involved with the provincial government in negotiations, and with the former director of communications involved with those companies, does the Premier feel that this is consistent or inconsistent with the conflict of interest guidelines for senior staff of the Executive Council?

Mr. Filmon: May I say firstly that in terms of the details defined in the various negotiations and so on, that it is an appropriate area for discussion with the Minister of Environment. I am not in any way, shape, or form involved in that. I report only based on the knowledge that I have of the issue. With respect to the issue of any relationship between the former Director of Cabinet Communications and the government on the issue, the minister has said publicly, and so have senior staff of the department and the former Director of Cabinet Communications--they have all stated that there has been no discussion with the government, no interaction with the government and the former Director of Cabinet Communications on that issue whatsoever.

If the member believes that somehow he can make a case on some kind of rumour or peripheral circumstantial evidence, I invite him to make the allegation under the conflict of interest act and pursue it. But all the individuals involved have stated very categorically that there has been no interaction on the issue.

Mr. Doer: The whole reason for having conflict of interest guidelines for senior staff or public officials or elected officials, et cetera, is to ensure that there is--the government itself passed of an extension of the conflict of interest guidelines dealing with senior staff and former cabinet ministers. I want to say that I think it places, at a minimum, people in a public policy area in a very awkward situation to have one of the closest people to the Premier involved in a file that has so much financial consequences to it, that it is being determined ultimately by cabinet.

Mr. Filmon: She is not involved in the file. That is the point that I make, and that is why the member ought not to put incorrect information on the record.

Mr. Doer: The former director of communications to cabinet has been employed or hired by, I believe it is the soft drink council or the beverage association of Manitoba as a consultant on "communications" or whatever. The Premier has confirmed that that former employee has been hired. Does the Premier not feel that that is contrary to his guidelines that he passed in conflict of interest guidelines for senior staff?

* (1610)

Mr. Filmon: And the answer very specifically is no. All of the former employees or many of the former employees of the Pawley New Democratic administration worked for companies that might have clients that worked with the provincial government. That does not mean they are working on that provincial government file. This is the case here. The person involved has been hired to do specific communications and policy consulting that does not involve their interaction with the provincial government--other issues.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairperson, of course, we know that the Canadian public and Manitoba public in dealing with activities, call them lobbyist, call them public relations consultant, call them what you will, are quite concerned about influence and the relationship between the public interest and knowledge obtained in the employ of the public. I know the people of Canada are very concerned about what has gone on in Ottawa before with the Mulroney groups and people that go back and forth between taxpayers'jobs and private companies and contracts, and I just think we have to be very, very careful here.

The intent the government had of bringing in this extension to conflict of interest was to ensure that not only were there no conflict of interests but there was not the perception of a conflict of interest. The Premier says the individual is involved in one part of the file and not involved in one part of the activity. I know she is not making the soft drinks, and I know we are dealing with public policy, well at least I suspect that. I did not think she was a beverage producer.

I just raise it and, you know, the Premier has given his statement here today, and we will have to take it today as such, but that is a concern we are raising. I am surprised the Premier has no concern about it in terms of what it means to the public policy issue.

Mr. Filmon: I did not say I had no concern. I said I received information. I saw the beverage industry people quoted as saying that she did not work on the file. I asked our own department, both minister and senior officials, and they confirmed she did not work on the file or have interaction with the government, and the individual herself confirmed that.

So there is absolutely no reason to believe that this is anything but innuendo and mudslinging by the Leader of the Opposition. If he has anything specific that would lead to a charge to be laid under the act, he is welcome to do so, but I invite him to please go ahead if he has that information rather than simply deal with innuendo and mudslinging.

Mr. Doer: If the Premier does not like me asking whether it is consistent or inconsistent with the conflict-of-interest guidelines, fair enough. I will still ask the question. The Premier has given the answer, and we will proceed accordingly.

I have a further question to the Premier. There was a striking similarity between the advertising that we saw in the Home Renovation Program and the advertising we saw from the Progressive Conservative Party on Manitoba Works. Was it the same advertising agency?

Mr. Filmon: Yes, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Doer: I would like to ask the Premier whether, given the fact that--in fact when I saw the ads I thought it was a Home Renovation ad. When I saw the Manitoba Works ad, I thought it was a Home Renovation ad. I thought the other one was a Manitoba Works ad. It was back and forth. It looked like the same ad. I am a little concerned. I am asking the Premier if--

Mr. Filmon: There was a remarkable similarity in '86 between the Pawley ads and those that the government had been running, same agency, too.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable member to give the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to put the question?

Mr. Doer: Thank you. So we have the same advertising agency, one which received a number of lucrative ads from the provincial government. I would ask the Premier, was the shoot for the public ad done at the same time as the shoot for the Manitoba Works ad?

Mr. Filmon: Absolutely not. I was there for one of them.

Mr. Doer: We will continue to pursue that because, as I say, it is almost identical footage. As I say, we could not tell the difference between a provincial government taxpayer-paid ad and the ad that was to be paid for by the Progressive Conservative Party. I would like to ask the Premier, how much was the Order-in-Council to spend beyond the supplementary limits? How much was that for advertising in the '94-95 fiscal year?

Mr. Filmon: He would have to ask that question of the Minister of Finance. I do not have that detail.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairperson, the Premier chairs cabinet, and that supplementary estimate went to cabinet. Can the Premier indicate roughly how much the amount was, please?

Mr. Filmon: I do not recall, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Doer: Does the Premier think it is appropriate in these so-called tough economic times that money and supplementary spending for advertising can take place in a pre-election period, paid for the taxpayers of Manitoba at a time when other programs--I mean, health care spending in some areas is being reduced, other programs are being reduced. The education system has got a zero percent increase. That is on top of cuts in education in the previous two years. Cuts have been made in health care. Cuts have been made to vital programs.

Does the Premier think it is appropriate in a pre-election year to have advertising paid for by the taxpayers receive supplementary approval by him and his government in the '94-95 fiscal year?

Mr. Filmon: I invite the Leader of the Opposition to talk to his colleague Premier Harcourt in British Columbia, who spends more than five times the amount that we do on public advertising as a government, who put out multipage summaries of his budget to every home in British Columbia, who had a television town hall to promote his budget, all at the expense of the taxpayer, who through Now Communications hired firms all over North America, including in Washington, D.C., and Winnipeg, Manitoba, a firm that is close to the Leader of the Opposition, who put out five times the amount of advertising that this government is engaged in. We as a government have not been overly generous with any area of the public treasury including spending on advertising.

Mr. Doer: Can the Premier indicate why then he had to approve supplementary spending for advertising in the pre-election year, why they were off budget to begin with and why they had to spend more public money on advertising such as the Home Renovation Program and other programs?

* (1620)

Mr. Filmon: Much of the advertising was to do with areas of change and reform, for instance in the public education system, the blueprint for education reform and so on. It was printing, it was making people aware because it was a major public issue that people wanted to learn more about, and much of that was what was contained within that supplementary supply.

As I understand it that money had been budgeted for in Education but was done by the Culture, Heritage and Citizenship department at their central communications and they actually billed it back to the department.

Mr. Doer: The Premier indicated that Foster/Marks received the Home Renovation ads from the provincial government. Can the Premier indicate what other advertising agencies received major contracts approved by cabinet for advertising in the '94-95 fiscal year?

Mr. Filmon: I am not sure that they would be approved by cabinet but I know that Palmer Jarvis is the agency of record for most of our Crown corporations and some other government work.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairperson, I want to raise another question dealing with the whole area of the cabinet Communications staff. I mentioned before that we have heard a lot of times that ministers cannot talk to the public, to the press, until they have had clearance from the Premier's group. The Premier has acknowledged that that group does review advertising contracts and other matters. I would like to ask the Premier that in light of the fact that the former Director of Cabinet Communications was the one approving or disapproving of requests under Freedom of Information, are those requests also vetted through the cabinet Comunications office?

Mr. Filmon: Communications staff do not approve the release of Freedom of Information requests. They are informed when information is being sent out, because in general terms the reason somebody asks is because they want to publicize that information and the requests are generally from media outlets or from opposition parties. So that obviously will be something that will become the basis of a question either in the House or publicly, and therefore they are informed when that information is being released. But they certainly do not have to give their approval to have the information released.

Mr. Doer: Certainly there is a culture in government that says that this group has a fair amount of power about what information is made public and what information is not. The Premier may deny it but the cultural reality that he has created in government with his own communication staff and the control they have over information is perceived to be a lot more powerful in terms of what flows or what does not flow to the public, to the opposition, to the media than what the Premier may acknowledge. Can the Premier advise this House if his Communications staff and his Director of Cabinet Communications office will review the material before it is released by the Freedom of Information officers that are delegated under the act and consistent with the act?

Mr. Filmon: There are Freedom of Information officers in every department of government who put the package of information requested together consistent with the act, and then in releasing that information they provide that information obviously to the Communications people so that minister will be aware when questions are about to be asked on these particular issues. It is a matter of having people plug into the information. They do not control the release of the information, and that is, I think, a very effective way of ensuring that we are kept informed on issues that we are going to be asked questions on.

Mr. Doer: Is this not an extra step in the flow of information to the public pursuant to The Freedom of Information Act in terms of the ability of citizens to access information that it would go to the Premier's communication people prior to being released to the public?

Mr. Filmon: It does not go prior to. It is sent as a copy when the information is released so that they can be aware that questions will likely be raised on the issue. So there is no extra step involved. There is no strain or restraint involved. There is a question of copying. Just as you would send a copy of something that you are dealing with to maybe members, to your critic in your caucus so that he or she is informed of something that you are saying on a particular issue, a copy is sent along.

Mr. Doer: The Premier will recall that I tabled a document about 18 months ago in the House dealing with a request to the former director of communications in the Premier's Office of whether they should release X or release Y under a request to the citizen. Now, that is the only written document we had, but we tabled it, and it clearly was a request seeking permission from the Premier's communication staff, from the cabinet communication staff as opposed to what the Premier has described today. We have also heard repeatedly from people that were requesting information from--you know, the communication staff or the Premier's Office is reviewing it or they are looking at it or whatever. So are you saying that when we talk to people pursuant to The Freedom of Information Act and they tell us that the Premier's staff has got it that the people are not telling us the truth? They do not have it? It is just something that the Freedom of Information officer is making up for us?

Mr. Filmon: My recollection of this issue that the member has raised is that it was more an example of the individual who was charged with the responsibility of releasing information seeking guidance as to which was a better form of response to the request, not seeking permission.

Mr. Doer: The Premier is saying that when we request information from departments further to the Freedom of Information guidelines and when the department says it is being reviewed by the Premier's communication people, that is not correct, that is just not true? Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Filmon: No, I have no knowledge that that is the process.

Mr. Doer: I want to move on to the issue of pensions for senior staff. Can the Premier indicate what pension plans are--of the staff in his area, in his particular Executive Council area--how many staff of his are under the provisions of The Superannuation Act and how many of his staff are outside of The Superannuation Act for purposes of pension benefits?

Mr. Filmon: I believe it is 14 who have opted out and receive a payment in lieu which, generally speaking, they put into self-administered RRSPs, just as the members of the Legislature now do.

Mr. Doer: The Premier has indicated before the terminology he has used--just as members of the Legislature. It was reported that some members are hired pursuant to Order-in-Council provisions in some deputy ministers' spots, while the secretary of Treasury, clerk of cabinet had received pension entitlements pursuant to their contract above and beyond what was the 7 percent matching contributions that now exist for MLAs.

The MLAs' pension benefits have been changed with the agreement of the whole House for purposes of compensation. It is a measure all of us supported to have some consistency with the outside world, the private sector, in terms of our pension entitlements.

Has the Premier now changed the entitlements of some of the highest paid people in government to ensure that the kind of entitlements that were changed by MLAs for themselves, rightly so, have been changed for senior staff?

* (1630)

Mr. Filmon: I am informed that the information has not changed since it was released publicly to the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, a few years ago. That provision continues to apply to a number of senior public servants, and as we said at that time, by taking the payment in that form, they absolve the taxpayer of all future obligations to those individuals. They no longer have to pay them a continuing pension plan in perpetuity upon reaching retirement age.

Mr. Doer: As the Premier knows, the new pension plan for MLAs also--a new MLA elected today, with the seven-and-seven provisions that are recommended by the public through the joint commission that was binding on this Legislature also absolves us for payments in perpetuity when a person retires or is retired or departs or leaves, or whatever, from this Chamber.

In light of the fact that we have all changed, I am sure this was a reduction in the entitlements of the Premier to go to this new plan that was recommended. I know it would be a reduction for a number of MLAs, but we felt the public interest was better served and rightly so, with eliminating these pension plans that probably were very negative for people like the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), but very lucrative for people who were in for a medium period of time and could accumulate entitlements they were eligible for at a very young age, that had a pretty bad taste in the public mind. We proceeded with the new pension plan, which is very similar to Saskatchewan, seven and seven contribution.

Is the Premier going to do the same thing with his own senior staff, the argument being the payments in perpetuity, but if you have obviously contributions for senior staff that are beyond, say, even the contributions that the Premier gets from the public and his own, I think that is wrong. Why would the Premier not get all these pension plans in some kind of equity and symmetry? If you are not going to join the superannuation fund, you move into the other fund, and it is matched on the same equivalent basis, as, say, just as the Premier, not having an accelerated or a larger payment that has been reported in this Chamber before.

Mr. Filmon: There has never been any requirement in government to treat the public servants less generously or equally generously with the members of the Legislature, indeed members of cabinet.

I know that throughout the Schreyer years and the Pawley years, the senior civil service received more money than the cabinet ministers they served. Senior civil servants like Mark Eliesen, or his successor at Manitoba Hydro, Gary Whatever-his-name-was, received provisions like a two-year severance on their contracts, things that were absolutely unconscionable, unheard of, would never have been tolerated to members of the Legislature or the cabinet ministers. They received all of those; they received more generous pension benefits than did their political masters, and this is not any different than the circumstances today where the benefits and the remuneration packages are what was negotiated and what gives us an opportunity to maintain a professional public service in this province.

I can also say categorically that the secretary of the Treasury Board is receiving about a third less working for the government of Manitoba than he did in the private sector.

I can say that the Clerk of the Executive Council, who is the senior public servant in the Province of Manitoba, gets substantially less in pay than does the Chief Commissioner of the City of Winnipeg, than does the CEO of most of our major hospitals, the president of the University of Manitoba, many senior faculty on staff in the universities, particularly in the medical faculties and so on, substantially less. As a public service, I do not believe they are overpaid.

Mr. Doer: The Premier will recall that we produced a report which was tabled actually by the subsequent Minister of Finance on Crown corporation salaries, creating classifications which--to deal with some of the absolute folly of having some of these benefits that are way beyond what should have been in the public sector.

I would agree with the Premier that over the years what was lost in recruiting and retaining people on the CEO side in Crown corporations was more than enhanced or enhanced on the benefit side, which, I think, was wrong. We changed that. The government implemented that same report on classifications on Crowns that dealt with that problem. I know that the Minister of Finance and I talked about it privately and he tabled it publicly creating those classifications. I know that when the government appointed the next CEO of MPIC--I think that the Liberals were quite critical of the salary level of that individual--I was not because it was consistent with what we agreed to ourselves, to be able to recruit and retain people, but pay people upfront, not hide things in some other drawer so that we did not have a person who is an adjuster at MPIC getting benefits on pensions that are quite different than the CEO, et cetera.

I know that some of the people that are hired into positions, like the Secretary of Treasury Board, do not know how long their career is going to be. Sometimes these people are hired at the will and pleasure of cabinet, but I do believe that the government should have salaries to be able to recruit and retain good people. I am not disputing that at all. I may disagree with the ideology of the individuals, but I am not--certainly, with the corporate cabinet, I know he is a very, very good person and carries out his responsibilities very well.

This is not a criticism of people, but I believe that we should not have three separate pension plans here in Manitoba: one pension plan under The Superannunation Act; another pension plan, which is seven-and-seven contributive plan that ends when a person leaves; and another plan for some of the senior paid people in the public service, which is quite bit higher than that. I think that is wrong in tough economic times. I think, for example, when the Secretary, Treasury Board, is saying to a nurse to take a 2 percent cut and to somebody else to take a 2 percent cut and to somebody else take a 2 percent cut, to have a plan which is equivalent of 10 or 11 percent matched per year, that is wrong. I think it was wrong when some of the CEOs and Crown corporations under the previous government had benefits way beyond what is in the public interest.

That is why I came forward with the report to our cabinet which the Minister of Finance, the member from Morris, Mr. Manness, proceeded with and implemented. When he appointed somebody pursuant to that report, as I say, the former head CEO of MPIC was hired shortly after the government took office, I said we have no difficulty with that. Salaries upfront, recruit and retain should be the criteria for government, but I do not believe in having--I think we straighten out our own mess. I do not think we could be too vigorous about this point on senior staff, and we had our own pension plan hanging around that gave us entitlements that, as I say, were unfair to people, long-term employees of the public through the Legislature, in the short term, may have been very, very unfair to the taxpayers.

* (1640)

Why would the Premier not reconcile all these plans now that we have our own House in order with the seven-and-seven contributions for all new MLAs starting? It seems to me to be a reasonable plan, a fair plan, a plan by which we can all live by. I think having that as a consistent message so the head of Treasury Board is not asking somebody to tighten their belt when their own pension plan may be more generous than some of those people who are on the lowest levels of pay are tightening their belt in the public service.

Mr. Filmon: I just say to the Leader of the Opposition, we never did have one plan. We, as members of the Legislature, were never in the Civil Service Superannuation Plan. We created, as a result of the independent commission, a different plan this time. We have never had one plan. We have never had a cookie-cutter approach in which everybody takes the same. If we did, we would not tolerate a situation in which those senior staff who have worked for ministers get paid much more than the ministers. That has gone on since time immemorial. Obviously, we would not be in that situation if we had a cookie-cutter plan.

We do not have that, and I can just say that the only way to judge whether or not the compensation is fair and reasonable is to compare it to what they would earn either in the private sector--certainly the two individuals who have been named, the Clerk of Executive Council and the secretary of Treasury Board, both took pay cuts to come out of the private sector to work for this government. Secondarily, compare it to what they could earn in senior-level positions in either Crown corporations or, let us say, the city government. In every case, they would earn more than they are earning in the present circumstance. To me, that says they are not overpaid in terms of their total package of compensation which includes their benefits.

Mr. Doer: I am sure there are other members in this Chamber, perhaps the member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews), perhaps the member for Riel (Mr. Newman), who would have perhaps taken a cut in pay. Of course, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) probably took a real cut in pay, coming off the--no, I do not want--[interjection] That is not my point, and I respect the fact that people in the public service, and all of us here, do it for the sheer love of the job and the challenges it presents--[interjection] I am just letting him dig himself deeper.

Perhaps I can continue on in my questions. The question, then, is, now that the MLAs have gone to the seven-and-seven contribution plan--and the Premier may be underpaid, everybody may be underpaid, may be overpaid. I am not sure. We have one superannuation plan. We also now have a Registered Retirement Savings Plan. We have implemented it for ourselves. Why are we not implementing it for everyone in the public, paid for by the taxpayers, so we can have a consistent model, so, for example, the secretary of the Treasury Board is not saying, times are tough, tighten your belt in the morning, and they are able to receive a quarter-of-a-million dollar potential pension payouts within a relatively very short period of time compared to the average person in our direct public service.

Mr. Filmon: Because, Mr. Chairperson, we never did have one single approach to it. There was an approach for the career civil servants who were in the civil service pension plan and they remain so. There was an approach for the members of the Legislature who were in one plan and now are in a different plan, and there is a very strong argument to be made for those senior civil servants who come and go at the pleasure of cabinet to be in different circumstances because they do not have the job security that is implicit in the Civil Service Superannuation Plan and The Civil Service Act.

Mr. Doer: So could the Premier explain to me why--well, let me ask the question--is Mr. Bessey in this plan of the same plan as the secretary of Treasury Board, or is he in with the superior amounts of entitlements and cost to the taxpayer, or is he in a different plan?

Mr. Filmon: His plan is similar to that of the two individuals that the member previously referenced.

Mr. Doer: Can the Premier indicate then what is the employee contribution and the employer contribution per annum for these pension plans for the three individuals I have mentioned?

Mr. Filmon: In this particular case the employees get a payment in lieu of their pension benefits that they would receive in going into a plan, and the payment is approximately 11 percent.

Mr. Doer: So the payment, the employers' payment, to the individuals concerned is 11 percent per annum approximately, as opposed to the employer-paid pension plan, say, to the Premier--I know he is underpaid compared to everybody else, et cetera--as opposed to the Premier and the other members of his Chamber of 7 percent, which was recommended in a public commission.

Mr. Filmon: Correct.

Mr. Doer: Of the 14 staff in the Executive Council line, I have some questions about deputy ministers that report directly and indirectly to the Premier or the deputy minister equivalent, Secretary of Treasury Board, et cetera. Can the Premier indicate how many of the staff of Executive Council are receiving the 11 percent employer contribution per annum versus the standard MLA and direct civil service equivalent of 7 percent?

Mr. Filmon: One, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Lamoureux: I just have a few questions with respect to this area of questioning. The Premier made reference to the fact that there were 44 under his administration compared to the previous administration of 50 in Executive Council. I am wondering if the Premier can give some sort of indication of the 1986, I guess it would have been, of what would have been the total line of expenditure for the Executive Council at that point.

Mr. Filmon: I have just been corrected; it was 59 under Premier Pawley in the Executive Council, and the total estimate in the budget that was defeated in 1988 was $3,187,200 compared to $3,165,400 today.

Mr. Lamoureux: I am not of course familiar in terms of the actual process. Out of the original 59, would there still be any around the Executive Council at this point in time?

Mr. Filmon: Actually, there are several long-term employees, and if you want me to name them I can. The actual number I can see is 9 that predate our administration, including some with over 25 years of experience.

* (1650)

Mr. Lamoureux: That would have--obviously, using simple math, it would mean 35 that would have been hired since the Premier has had control over Executive Council. What would be the actual hiring process in hiring these individuals? Are they brought over from other civil service positions? How are they actually brought into the Executive Council?

Mr. Filmon: As I look again through the names, I know that quite a number have come over from other areas of the civil service, from other departments and other ministerial offices. I know that quite a number were hired through the normal civil service process, and then a number, probably equating to maybe a third, would be Order-in-Council appointments as political staff.

Mr. Lamoureux: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) was addressing the question of severance. Can I get some sort of an indication? For example, those that are more of the career, the nine, if you will, the career civil servants, I would imagine there is not too much in terms of severance other than, ultimately, the pension with full retirement benefits and so forth, but for individuals who are shifted over from other civil service positions, is it the idea that after a while they might be shifted outside, like they are professional civil servants that do shift amongst the different departments? The focus of what I am trying to get at is more so the third, I believe this is what the Premier refers to, in how the hiring process, if you will, proceeds with that third.

Mr. Filmon: The member is quite right. We are treated like any other department. We are part of the civil service, and two-thirds of those employees would have normal civil service status and expectations, and if they did not remain in Executive Council, they might go into other ministerial offices and remain as part of the civil service. The approximately one-third that are essentially political staff would be hired through the process of either myself or a delegated individual within my senior staff going through an interview and hiring process where they would look for people with specific talents and knowledge.

Mr. Lamoureux: Just to use an example, to pick the first name at the top, Ron Arnst, how would the Premier go through the hiring of an individual of this nature? For example, would you say, Mr. Arnst, here is a severance package that we would be looking at? How do you come to grips with the terms of employment with an individual of this nature? Is this a position that is created because, let us say, the Premier of the day says, here is a position that I would like to have serving in the Premier's Office and then you set the terms of employment? How is that put together?

Mr. Filmon: I think we would have some normal standards, that three months severance is fairly standard for political staff, but some more senior political staff would have six months severance.

As I say, under our predecessor administration, they went up to a year and then to two years for some of their most sensitive people.

My understanding is quite simply that because those people recognized they were at the pleasure of the government and recognized the, shall we say, insecurity that was implicit in the job, they asked for severances that were much more than the normal.

We felt that one year was probably as far as anybody should push it, and we were quite honestly taken aback when we found that a number of the senior people in the Pawley administration had two-year severances.

Mr. Lamoureux: Does the Premier have any employees through Executive Council that have a one-year severance or more?

Mr. Filmon: We tabled the standard employment agreements about two years ago to the two Leaders of the opposition, and they still would have copies of them.

We felt it made sense to spell out ahead of time what the terms and conditions were of employment agreements for political staff and that the standard severance in those agreements calls for one-month severance pay for each year of service, so nobody of our political staff would be entitled to any more than seven months of severance at this point.

It would build, if any of them stayed for the remainder of this term of government. It would obviously build to the point that they would be approaching one year of severance.

Mr. Lamoureux: That used to be the severance package that we used to operate under also. I believe it was one month for a year.

The commission actually came up with the recommendation, of course, to put a cap on that. Is the Premier prepared to entertain the same sort of thing, a cap in terms of the number of months? You have made reference, for example, to the year. The previous administration would quite often exceed a year in severance. Would the Premier make the commitment to not do that?

Mr. Filmon: Indeed, the employment agreements for these political staff do specify that the maximum is one year.

The reason for the severance, of course, is that the conflict-of-interest law really prevents many work options within the province of Manitoba. We have just been through that discussion with respect to some staff who have left and who have particular expertise in various areas but have little opportunity to practise their area of expertise, because government tends to be a major client for much of the applications of their efforts so that when your severance is there on a very thoughtful basis because of the restrictions that are placed on those who would then choose to leave the civil service, or be chopped--what is a better word for that?--severed from the civil service by a new administration.

Mr. Lamoureux: Actually, I believe I can vaguely recall the standard employment forms that the Premier is referring to. I think this is something that even the caucus office had considered doing with their employees. Again, dealing with the third under the terms of the agreement of employment, is it then generally expected that upon a change in government that this entire third, if you will, a new administration could in fact replace that third without additional severances being provided?

Mr. Filmon: That has indeed been the practice. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition had a humorous comment at one time about exchanging prisoners at the border with Saskatchewan when there were changes of government that went the opposite way.

The tradition and the practice has generally been that the administration that is leaving office does in fact sever all of their political staff and does give them the package which has been negotiated, usually with the transition committee, because we did not have any specified, standard severance packages in those days. I recall that when the Pawley administration left office it was three months minimum but so much per year of service. Then there was the open question which ended up adding a great deal to the package which was accumulated overtime and sick leave that ended up in some cases adding about seven months pay to some employees. So these are things that happen when you do not have some standard forms and limitations. We have limitations on accumulated sick leave now. We have limitations on accumulated overtime as well as the severance.

* (1700)

Mr. Chairperson: The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour.

Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

Committee Report

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson of Committees): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to.