* (1450)
Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Would the Committee of Supply come to order, please. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates for Executive Council. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time.
We were on Resolution 2.1(b), but we had agreed that we would ask questions openly and pass everything at the conclusion.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I concluded yesterday on the Millennium Fund and the infrastructure program. I want to continue on some federal-provincial questions, but the government took as notice yesterday the amount of money that the federal government was clawing back on the alleged private health care under the Canada Health Act, and the Premier took under notice to bring that information back. I wonder if the Premier has that information this afternoon.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Chairman, the information I have from the Department of Health would indicate that the number of insured services that are being performed or estimated to be performed in private surgical clinics in Manitoba is 3,000 per year. That resulted in a monthly federal transfer payment withholding of 49,000 being withheld at the time that the new federal guideline interpretation came into place on October 15, '95.
Now the interprovincial reciprocal agreement rate for daycare surgery has been adjusted from 285 to 400 per procedure, so the adjustment results in 68,000 of monthly transfer payments being withheld. So it is not a matter of an increase in numbers of procedures but rather an increase in the rate that is charged through this interprovincial agreement which is the basis of the costs withholding.
Mr. Doer: There are national bodies that maintain national statistics on this area of federal interpretation and penalties under the--pursuant to the Health Act. Can the Premier indicate the last fiscal year, which would have been--I am sure they would have numbers for '96-97, the total amount of money that Manitoba was penalized for so-called private procedures contrary to the Health Act?
Mr. Filmon: According to these figures, it should be 68,000 times 12, which is 816,000. That is the estimate for this year. Last year it was 588,000.
Mr. Doer: And does that represent the total penalties assessed by the federal government for all health care procedures in Manitoba, the total amount?
Mr. Filmon: Yes, that is the information I have been given.
Mr. Doer: Thank you for the information. I would like to ask the Premier, we have joined with him and other Manitobans in being opposed to what we would consider to be made-in-Toronto immigration policies of the federal government. We have certainly seen a reduction in the number of immigrants coming to Manitoba, and a reduction below even our population representation in Canada, some four percent in the last number of years. We think some of the policies work against families in Manitoba, in terms of reuniting families. They work against other people from around the world, in terms of economic opportunity in our province. We all recognize that we are sons and daughters, or grandsons and granddaughters of immigrants, except our First Nations people who of course were here 6,000-8,000 years ago. I know the government has had a number of, should I say, policy disagreements with the federal government.
Can the Premier advise us: is there an existing agreement with the federal government, and is there concurrence in this agreement with the federal government?
Mr. Filmon: We do have an immigration agreement with Ottawa, as the member knows. It does increase our ability to influence the process to try and bring additional immigrants into Manitoba, but we have spoken out strongly against the landing fees. We have spoken out strongly against the limits and quotas that have been put on immigration. At this point, it is difficult to tell what effect that will have had. It certainly appears as though Minister Robillard is backing off on some of the recommendations from the committee that advised her, particularly with respect to the need to have English or French capability in coming here, perhaps a few others, but we certainly, despite having an agreement that allows some influence on recruitment--and we are getting more recruitment in particular areas. The member may know that there have been quite a few Argentine Jews who have been coming here, I understand as of the weekend, 29 families, many of which resulted in contacts we made during the Pan American Games process. There are other areas in which we are going out actively recruiting from various parts of the world.
* (1500)
But having said that, we are still limited by, as the member has indicated, a made-in-Toronto policy. I would argue a made-in-Toronto, made-in-Vancouver policy because those seem to be the areas of greatest influence on the limitations that the federal government is placing on immigration numbers.
Mr. Doer: Is there any indication that the Manitoba members of parliament are onboard with the provincial government's position and are both inside and outside of government? Are they consistently fighting on behalf of the Manitoba interest to have economic growth through both in-migration in Canada, birth in Manitoba, and immigration in this province?
Mr. Filmon: Did the member ask if we are still fighting for more numbers, or did he ask if the federal members--
Mr. Doer: Federal members.
Mr. Filmon: Well, it is difficult to say. Federal members have indicated in the public arena that they have not been comfortable with some aspects of their government's policy, but there is no question that they would knuckle under to their federal government's policy and try and have it both ways. Certainly, the federal members that we would have some influence on. I suppose the Conservative member would be supportive of our position vis-a-vis increased numbers coming. I do not know what position would be taken by the Reform representatives on this issue. I certainly believe that his colleagues at the federal level would be supportive of us achieving greater immigration numbers into Manitoba, knowing that we face serious skill shortages in a number of areas.
He probably saw the article in the weekend paper about recruiters being given bonuses to bring people into areas such as Great-West Life, Kleysen Transport, Loewen Windows, a number of different areas of skill shortages in Manitoba. Many of these areas can benefit from having increased numbers of immigrants, skilled trades for a number of our manufacturing areas, even people with good computer skills could certainly be recruited through immigration. We continue to make that point with Ottawa, and I would say that unfortunately, as the member has characterized it, the policy is not designed with Canada as a whole in mind. It is rather directed at particular interests in Toronto and Vancouver.
Mr. Doer: Has the Premier given any thought to having a community meeting on immigration, inviting all the members of Parliament, including the incumbent federal government, as a way of presenting a different dynamic, a made-in-Manitoba dynamic to immigration, rather than just relying on the traditional methods of minister-to-minister information? As the Premier has indicated, he used the term "knuckle under" in terms of the federal government. I think there is a certain amount of saying one thing in Winnipeg or in other parts of the province and saying something else quite differently or not saying anything at all in Ottawa. We would be prepared to join him in an all party, if we are unable to move the federal government on its policy. We would be prepared to work with him in a kind of made-in-Manitoba, all-party approach to either go to Ottawa or have a forum in Winnipeg where we invite the four parties represented in Ottawa here as a way of trying to get around the traditional, centralized caucus decision making in the federal government and having more of a unique Manitoba perspective in this debate. So we would be prepared to join with the Premier.
We do have skill shortages. We do have families that cannot afford some of the fees. I know my grandparents came from different countries a couple of generations ago. They could not have afforded the fees to come into our country. I know the Premier probably feels the same way about his family. I think it is incumbent upon us, who have had the great joy of living in a wonderful province in a great country, that we ensure that the kind of tolerance and the kind of economic opportunity that immigration represents be passed on to people that are contemplating moving to Canada or families that would like to unify. I would be prepared to join in with the Premier in any way, shape or form to put more of a kind of human face and public face on this policy issue, if we are unsuccessful with the federal government.
Mr. Filmon: I appreciate the suggestion of the member opposite, and I am saying this kindly, not as a criticism, that I do not doubt that this would put some pressure on some of our local representatives, probably even embarrass them, which is not necessarily going to change what happens in Ottawa. The difficulty is that the local members faced with this kind of pressure--I have seen people like Mr. Alcock and Mr. Pagtakhan, for two, Mr. Walker, who is no longer there, say locally, because there have been these kinds of public hearings, public meetings organized by the International Centre and the organization that Marty Dolin heads up. These kinds of meetings create that kind of embarrassment or discomfort in local members, who usually indicate that they are sorry that these policies are coming into place and pledge to the people there that they will do their best to fight against them, but when it gets to Ottawa the message gets drowned out by the policy of the government.
So I guess the trick is: how do we get the decision makers in Ottawa to recognize and respond to the need to change the policy? Quite honestly, this is the kind of thing that we have to come to grips with, is how do we really influence Ottawa. You know, you have seen it in the Liberal backbenchers here in Manitoba seemingly standing up and saying in rural areas that they are not really supportive of the gun registration laws, and then at the same time letting the government policy go through, or voting against certain things from time to time or speaking out for Pinawa, let us say, and then having the minister responsible downsize and dismantle Pinawa while their local member is saying that he is all in favour of keeping it going. Those are things that--unfortunately, public meetings can bring some local discomfort and embarrassment to a member, but we are trying to find a way to really convince Ottawa that we need immigrants, particularly in areas to fill known visible skill shortages and to help us build our economy stronger but also to be able to add to the kinds of families that have come here over the last two decades and that are very good, productive citizens in our society.
* (1510)
So I would like to think a little more about how we might get maximum positive impact out of this kind of proposal, but I certainly appreciate the Leader of the Opposition's offers of participation.
Mr. Doer: We will just leave that offer for the Premier in the best spirit it was intended.
It has been reported, on another federal-provincial matter, at the time that the federal government had approved additional funding to the Pan Am Games, that some 70 percent of the games now would be funded through the public sector, federal, provincial, municipal sector. Can the Premier indicate the balance of private and public sector revenue for the sustainability of the games at this point?
Mr. Filmon: The information that the member puts forward I believe is accurate. The actual numbers are: City of Winnipeg, cash commitment of $8 million; federal government, cash commitment of $49.5 million; Province of Manitoba, cash commitment of $42 million--for a total of $99.5 million. The total approved budget is about $145 million, and that is slightly over two-thirds, so his figure of 70--I think it is 72 percent, if my memory serves me correctly.
Mr. Doer: From the original bid and the numbers that we saw, certainly some of the revenue items had been overestimated, TV revenues, for example, we know had been overestimated in the original budget and some of the other expenses had not been anticipated. Can the Premier indicate the increase in expenses from the time of the budget? The term that was used was we have a shortfall but that was based on the original budget. We know that there have been some revenue shortfalls. Can the Premier indicate what the expense discrepancies were from the original budget proposal to the revised numbers that are being used?
Mr. Filmon: The increase went from a budget of 122, which was the budget upon which the bid was based, to 145. I do not have the information as to where the increase in expenditures was. Certainly the major difference in revenue was what they valued the TV revenues at versus what they are able to get. I think it was grossly overestimated and that is the major difference in terms of the revenue side.
Mr. Doer: I have been told that the TV revenue budget was estimated on games, Commonwealth Games and other games that did not have the same TV audience as the Pan Am Games. I have also been informed that the expenses have gone up from the original bid based on the numbers of athletes and coaches that Manitoba would pay for, or the games would pay for, to come to this community.
Can the Premier indicate how many athletes and coaches the games were going to pay for in the original bid and how many athletes and coaches are going to be paid for in the current budget?
Mr. Filmon: I am informed that the difference in costs for the athletes was more a matter of the travel subsidies being underestimated, not the numbers per se. In fact, the numbers may have increased by 10 percent or so. I think they are now considering 5,500 and originally it was 5,000, but in addition to that the travel subsidies are now estimated at $9 million, and they would have been perhaps a third of that at the time of the bid process. There would be also a little extra cost on housing that they were probably underestimating.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairman, $99.5 million is a lot of public money for the games. Will all the facilities that are being prepared and built or enhanced for the Pan Am Games be available for the public after the games?
Mr. Filmon: The one major area of expansion is the second pool at Pan-Am, which would certainly totally be open for public access. There is the new fieldhouse at the University of Manitoba, which would be a public facility in the hands of the University of Manitoba. There is a velodrome, a second track. One is short track, and one is long track. I forget which one is being built but, again, it would be a totally public-use facility after the conclusion of the games. The retention pond at South Transcona is totally public access.
Dredging of the lake at Minnedosa would remain a public facility. The improvements at Birds Hill at the equestrian facilities would remain in public hands. The area that is privately controlled is the baseball park, but it has a clause requiring access to amateur baseball. So essentially everything that remains by way of infrastructure would remain as a public access facility. As you know, the University of Manitoba School of Nursing dormitories are going to be used for the Pan American Games also of course as one of the legacies of the games.
Mr. Doer: So can the Premier, and I would expect that the policy for public money would be for public assets that are available to the general public after the games. I would expect that that would be a rule of policy development because I know it was the general rule of thumb for our former Premier Roblin when he had the games here in Winnipeg in '67, and I know it was the general principle under which Mr. Desjardins and Mr. Parasiuk initiated a bid or a discussion of a bid in Indianapolis in the mid-'80s that all subsequently came with the awarding of the games in '99.
* (1520)
Is there any public money going to enhance any facility that would only be available for private use or private members?
Mr. Filmon: Certainly it will be very similar to the legacy from the '67 games. We have to acknowledge that in things that were for instance left at the university that a person could not just go up and demand access to it. It would have to be arranged through the university for a valid meet or something of that nature or even for training that the university would ultimately have the final say over the use of it, but it is in public hands.
Similarly, I think the water ski association will retain control over the use of the infrastructure in the retention pond in Transcona, that it could not be that somebody just drives up and says, I want to go and water ski on this course without permission and without going through the channels. Similarly, the province operates Birds Hill, and you could not just walk out there and demand use without going through the proper channels. I would say there are more partnerships this time than there were in '67, where in '67 almost everything was just straight publicly funded with very few partners involved.
In this case, they have chosen to partner with many different community organizations in order to create these facilities, and in soccer and other areas it would devolve to whoever is the local public authority, municipal government in some cases, university in other cases, that kind of thing. The only area in which you have some public funds with a private facility that I can recall at this point is the baseball stadium, and, as I say, we have a clause in there that requires amateur baseball to be able to have access to that facility in future.
Mr. Doer: I thank the Premier for the answer. I have some concerns about the venue for soccer. We will have a situation where the World Cup soccer tournament will take place in the south of France, and I would expect that Manitobans will want to see some of the great soccer teams starting with Canada, of course, but other countries like Brazil and others that will be major sports attractions, international attractions, to this tournament.
We are hearing that the original venue was to be the Winnipeg Stadium, and we are also now hearing that that may be transferred out of the Winnipeg Stadium. There are logistical problems, there are space problems, and I just want to straighten it out with the Premier. Has the venue for soccer or football been changed from the stadium? Was that the original plan? Has it been changed, and where is it going to go if it has been changed?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, the member can elaborate on his understanding of it, but my understanding is that there was at some point in the planning the hope that soccer could be played at Winnipeg Stadium, but the FIFA have absolutely ruled out playing on artificial turf, so the only way it could be done at Winnipeg Stadium would be to tear up the artificial turf, put grass on, leave it there for the next football season, that is the '99 football season, and then put new artificial turf on following that, all at considerable expense.
So the better alternative that is being recommended is that the soccer be held at the city-owned facility on Wilkes which is, again, a public facility, with some upgrading of seating. The argument against that that people are saying is that it would be unfortunate that there would not be as many people able to see it as would at Winnipeg Stadium, but, logistically, there just does not appear to be any possible way of using Winnipeg Stadium. I guess the grass could not be put in--you see, it would have to go in after the '98 football season, and they would have to tear it up and put it fresh, and it would be a terrible playing surface to have been laid in the spring of '99 and played on in the summer of '99. Nobody recommends it as the solution.
The other alternative is not to go into a private facility but rather just another public facility that does not have as much seating, but I do not see how that would affect seeing World Cup soccer teams coming through here. They would still play at that facility on Wilkes anyway, as far as I would know.
Mr. Doer: As one of the people that is a purist in terms of football stadiums and loves the Green Bay Packers stadium with grass, real grass, and does not like artificial turf, and I do not know who was involved in putting artificial turf in the stadium to begin with, and probably, you know, any one of us could have been involved and not known it, could have been involved in the decision, I cannot imagine, this is kind of unfortunate, because we have got, I mean, I know my own daughter plays soccer now; I know lots of people have kids that play soccer. They may be of a young age, but they would love to see these world-class athletes play soccer.
I am worried about, say, the Brazilian soccer team, the A team, the team that is going to be playing in the south of France, I hope the Premier is being able to assure us it is the same team that is going to show up. Will they show up to Wilkes Avenue for this tournament, and will there be enough seats to watch a great team like that play?
I am quite worried about this; this is a real international community. Soccer is a world attraction. From the last Pan Am Games, there has been a quantum change in the number of kids that are playing soccer at all levels, boys and girls of all levels, from where we were in 1967. There would be a greater, much as we saw in the United States a couple of years ago or three years ago now with the World Cup soccer, tremendous interest in watching soccer because of the explosion of youth that are watching it.
It does not seem to me that we have got the optimum situation for soccer right now, and I would raise this with the Premier. Does he think Wilkes can accommodate the great numbers of people, Manitobans and people from the United States that would want to come here and other Canadians who would want to come here to watch it, and are we really going to deny a lot of members of our community that tremendous opportunity to witness soccer? I am quite worried about the venue right now.
Mr. Filmon: I do not doubt that the Pan Am Games Society people are just as concerned to try and get as many people to see it. On the other hand, what is most important, if we are going to get the top teams, is to have a proper facility to play on. If the consequence of that is that they play on a first-class pitch but it is being watched primarily by television as opposed to in person, that is one of those things that they will have to decide on. I do not know of any other solution to providing a larger venue for them. I am quite sure that they could not construct a new one in time for 1999.
They have ruled out the Winnipeg Stadium because of the logistics of having to tear up the artificial turf, and they do have a facility that is certainly a good soccer pitch for playing and has lots of practice grounds and everything else around for the teams, maybe, I think, can hold several games at once, but it does not have as big a seating capacity as they would like for it. So that is, I guess, a trade-off that they have to decide. I certainly do not think that it is something that a politician will decide when the best minds in the business are there to make that decision.
Mr. Doer: I am just going by memory now, and I have not got the document in front of me, but if my memory serves me correctly, the Winnipeg Stadium was used in the bid that was approved by the Pan Am's selection committee. The Winnipeg Stadium was used as the site, was it not?
Mr. Filmon: I do not have that at my fingertips. I know that in many cases they did not have to give specifics as to where they would hold things. There was a possibility, for instance, of holding volleyball, basketball and other things at the Winnipeg Arena. All they had to assure was that they had adequate facilities or would construct adequate facilities for it, and I do not know if they had to be so specific as to say that it will be held here.
The member may know that it was planned to hold the water skiing at Portage la Prairie. It has been moved now. Those are decisions that the society has to make, but they cannot make them without the approval of the international sport organization, in this case it would FIFA, as well as Pan Am--PASO, the Pan American Sports Organization. So they have to get all these things approved by the sport experts when they make the final selection.
* (1530)
Mr. Doer: I will move onto some other federal-provincial questions. I know that the Premier had announcements on the Pan Am Games. It was part of the last Team Canada trip and he also had announcements on the Canadian Wheat Board. He also had announcements on the last trek to Asia dealing with the wheat board sale to an Asian country. Were there any other major announcements that were made by the Team Canada mission and the government of Manitoba dealing with Manitoba contracts in the most recent set of visits to South America in January?
Mr. Filmon: The ones that I can recall off the top of my head are at least three contracts that were signed by Duha Color Services, plus the establishment of a display home in I believe it was Chile by our people who are involved with export housing. There were several companies involved because we had with us people from Loewen Windows. I believe it was also Olympic Building Systems and Newton Home and Kitchen Craft and so on, and so they were very much involved with building a display home in Santiago.
There was also an announcement by the University of Manitoba, the relationship both with a university in Mexico and a university in Santiago again. I know a couple of deals that were done without publicity, one by a grain storage company, a manufacturer that was with us, another by Can-Oat that was not for publication because of the fact that it might have caused some difficulty with Argentine producers, but a fairly significant agreement for a sale there.
Those were all things that were either done in conjunction with or during the Team Canada mission. The Wheat Board made sale announcements in both Mexico and Brazil. A number of the other grain companies, including James Richardson & Sons and XCAN, were doing their ongoing business meetings while we were there. Some have resulted in agreements and contracts since then. Others would be part of their ongoing business relations with those countries.
Mr. Doer: Can the Premier indicate what the overall trade--do we have a trade deficit with the Asian countries that we have been visiting? Have our exports gone up? Have our imports gone up? Is our current trade situation--can the Premier indicate from '95-96 to '96-97, which would be prior to the Asian flu, whether we are seeing an increase in the trend line? I know we are seeing an increase in the trend line on exports. I know we are seeing an increase in some of the imports. What is our deficit of trade with Asia, and do we have an increased deficit of trade? Do we have a surplus of trade with Asia, which I think we should with agricultural products? Can the Premier indicate what the status of that is, please?
Mr. Filmon: We will just indicate that the trend line continues to basically go upward in our exports to these countries, as the member has indicated, but that can vary substantially. Particularly, I have figures that indicate from '96-97, Japan, our exports are up; China, our exports are down; and that could be just one Canadian Wheat Board sale that would cause that, to the tune of $130 million.
The basic trend line: Indonesia is up; South Korea is up; Taiwan is flat. I will have to find out about the imports. I do not have that at my fingertips. We will just basically say that contacts that are made through the Team Canada process generally have produced long-term relationships and results that we can point to positively, but at the same time we also have long-term relations that certainly pre-date Team Canada, people like the Wheat Board or our major grain companies having done business there in many cases for 25 years or more.
* (1540)
So we just basically say that it creates a very high profile. I would say that the Leader of the Opposition would be impressed at the kind of publicity that we get for our Team Canada trip. We are basically on the front pages of every local newspaper every day that we are there in the capital cities or the major cities that we are visiting. Certainly, the business people who now pay in excess of $10,000 to be a part of the trip, because that is what it costs for them to go, are very complementary and very supportive of the ability to make contacts with the high profile that the trips give them in the countries that they visit, with suppliers, with customers and other people.
So if the member wants the statistics on imports and exports to these countries, we will pick all of the countries that we have visited in Asia. In three years, we went to, I believe it was, about 10 countries. We will try and get both export and import numbers over the period of the last three or four years.
Mr. Doer: I thank the Premier for that. I always thought that former Premier Harcourt's idea of a Team Canada approach was a good one, rather than having every individual Premier go in to China, or in to Japan, week after week after week. I thought it made more sense to proceed this way. I think we would want to see those numbers. If the Premier could provide those, it would be helpful, particularly, numbers before the so-called Asian flu.
Can the Premier indicate what impact--we know that British Columbia will be very hard hit by the so-called flu. We know that there are economists saying the United States will eventually be hit and that will eventually impact on Canada. We know that others are saying it will not happen. What is the present prediction in terms of the Asian situation? I know that Tokyo is going up in the last couple of days, but there was speculation that some of the budgetary changes were not as great as they should have been yesterday. What is the present prediction in the Manitoba government on the impact of the so-called Asian flu? I know that some of the markets are closed today, but what would be the impact on the Manitoba economy? What are the present trade predictions and its economic impact on Manitoba for the Asian situation looking in the near-term, the '98-99 fiscal year and the '99 calendar year?
Mr. Filmon: Not that I need or want the credit, but I just mention that former Premier Harcourt used to refer to it as the Harcourt-Filmon proposal, because really it was the two of us who conceived it at the Western Premiers' Conference in 1993 and sold it to the Prime Minister in December of that year when we met on the 21st in Ottawa. I was very happy to co-operate in what I thought was a good proposal and a good idea, and Premier Harcourt certainly deserves credit and mention on it.
The best minds in the world at the IMF and at the World Trade Organization are grappling with the challenge of attempting to quantify what impacts the Asian currency meltdown might have on economies throughout the world.
In discussions this year at the World Economic Forum and discussions I have had with various ambassadors who have come through, it is interesting that everybody has a different perspective, and I would say that what most people do not, or cannot quantify is the side-swipe effect. They can think in terms of what impact it will have on our direct exports, the assumption being that it will make our exports more expensive because their currency has devalued so substantially that they probably will not be able to afford to buy the exports from the various different countries.
But the side-swipe effect is one that, for instance, the Mexicans are concerned about and we ought to be concerned about, and that is the impact of our imports from Asia becoming cheaper for many of these countries; therefore, these imports supplanting our production in third party markets. The Mexicans, for instance, produce a variety of the same products that are produced in Asia, and they are afraid that Asian products will now take the place of Mexican products in a lot of third country destinations. They really do not know what this might be.
This year, for instance, in our budget we said the uncertain prospects for Asian economies raised questions about Canada's economic output for 1998; however, most analysts are now of the view that Canada will continue to do well. The Canadian economy has as much underlying strength going into 1998 as it did at the start of '97. Overall monetary conditions remain stimulative; inflation remains low; government finances have continued to improve. Premier Clark said to me that they are calculating a loss of GDP in excess of 1 percent. I do not know what the effective figure they used for their budget projections was, but it was somewhere in that range.
I heard an analyst from the CIBC say that Manitoba had more to lose because it has a significant level of export into Asia. I immediately talked to some of our staff economists, and I said could they be under the misapprehension that those exports by the Canadian Wheat Board actually will impact our GDP, because they do not. Basically, the Wheat Board is the conduit by which a lot of agriculture production goes through to Asian countries. It actually contributes zero to our GDP. The Wheat Board has the same number of staff; whether they sell a million tonnes or 10 million tonnes, they still have the same number of staff in Winnipeg, and so it really does not have an impact.
The impact would be on the price or the production to the producer, and, of course, we are as a province one of the smallest producers but the biggest exporter because of the Wheat Board and other grain companies being located here. When they brought that to the attention of the economist, she acknowledged that that is right and that really if you strip it right down, our exports to Asia are not that significant that it would have any particular impact on us, maybe a tenth of a percentage point if there is going to be a significant impact.
So at this point, it is the third-party kind of influences that we cannot quantify, that nobody can quantify, but I am given to understand from various discussions with Canadian--well, it used to be called the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. It is now the Alliance of Manufacturers & Exporters Canada whom I met with a few weeks ago and others, that they are still predicting a very, very buoyant year for manufacturers and exporters in Manitoba, and so we have no reason to believe that there is something unforeseen at this point in our economic forecasts.
Mr. Doer: Well, we have met with the manufacturing association or what its term is today or latest term, and they, of course, feel quite confident. Obviously, with the low dollar at 70 cents, it is quite a bit lower than even eight or nine years ago when it was at 88, 87 cents.
So they feel, their advice to us is anything below a 79-cent dollar, that they are in a situation where they have tremendous competitive advantages. In fact, most of them raise the issues in terms of their industry, the whole need of training and retraining of skilled workers as the major challenge that they have.
The grain prices, particularly wheat, are down from last year. Some of our agricultural products are down on the commodity markets. What is the present analysis that the provincial government has, and what is its impact on producers here in Manitoba in terms of income for farm families here in this province?
* (1550)
Mr. Filmon: That is always a difficult thing to forecast. Most observers thought that last year, because of some commodity prices dipping, that last year would have resulted in a reduction in our total net farm income. It resulted in the highest in our history.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): A 7 percent overall net gain.
Mr. Filmon: It was, the Minister of Agriculture points out, a 7 percent overall net gain. Was the figure 3 billion?
But it shows you that, just as the entire economy of Manitoba is extremely diversified--and I have had this discussion with my colleagues to the west that Manitoba really is, although a prairie province in name, a central Canada province in economic description. Our economy is far more similar to Ontario's than it is to Saskatchewan's, Alberta's or British Columbia's. It is very dominant, predominant in manufacturing today, in financial services, in transportation-distribution. Agriculture, as the member knows, represents a very small, much smaller part of our economy. But what is changing is the value that we are adding to the agricultural production. Although direct agricultural production is down somewhere in the range of 6 percent of our entire GDP, agribusiness in total is somewhere in the range of 16 percent, I think, agrifood, 17 or 18 percent.
So it is the whole business of adding value and diversifying crops. If you take a look at what our exports are to Japan, you will see things like bird seed, honey, buckwheat. We are the largest source of buckwheat for Japan, and that is because of our eastern European heritage where buckwheat was a staple Ukrainian food, and this is one of the few places in the world outside of Ukraine that actually produces buckwheat to this day. In Japan, they make pasta out of buckwheat, so it is quite an unusual set of things that make up--even our agriculture is so diversified by comparison to Saskatchewan or Alberta that it is difficult to predict what will ultimately happen, because people tend to read those same signals that the member opposite is talking about and when they see wheat prices going down they move into canola or to buckwheat or to lentils or peas or something else that may have higher value. At the same time, there is this overall trend, the member opposite may know, that we are now producing something in the range of in excess of 4 million hogs per year, and we are producing how many acres of potatoes?
An Honourable Member: 70,000.
Mr. Filmon: 70,000 acres of potatoes, which continues to grow. Potatoes, for instance, are the highest net return per acre of any of the major crops in Western Canada these days, because they are being grown for processing.
So these are the kinds of things that will have a major impact on how this all works out. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) is suggesting that our best guess at this point is that our total agricultural income will be stable, probably not the kind of major increase that we have seen in the last two years, probably will stabilize this year, but at this point we are not expecting it necessarily to go down.
Mr. Doer: I was hearing that the potato producers about a year ago, that there was difficulty with the plant in Carberry in terms of the access to U.S. markets, that there had been some real economic opposition to the potato export from the plant. I know we were involved years ago in the expansion of the plant, which has since been expanded again for french fry production and sale to certain outlets including the golden arches, I understand. Has that situation been resolved? I believe it was the United States that was opposing some of the sale of our french fries to their communities as opposed to the Asian market, which was continuing to expand.
Mr. Filmon: If the member opposite is referring to the fact that there was a temporary interruption of their ability to supply to their major clients, who were McDonald's restaurants in greater Chicago and greater Milwaukee, it was a quality problem. The potatoes did not meet the quality standards for a period of time. It might have been ones that had been in storage too long. I cannot recall the story, but I did know the circumstances. That was overcome in a relatively short period of time, and they were right back to not only full production but also to full export to their major customers in the United States. So as far as I know everything is back to normal.
Mr. Doer: Moving to two other issues left in the federal-provincial area before the member for the Interlake has a couple of questions for you. I am sure you are aware that your staff are involved. I am sure they are on their toes standing ready for his questions, but he is getting impatient with me I am sure.
But the flood situation, do we have a federal-provincial agreement on the flood, (a) from the 1995 flood, which I asked you about last year; (b) from the 1996 flood, which I asked you about last year; and (c) from the 1997 flood, which was a flurry of debate in this House and in this Chamber through the federal election and after the federal election and subsequently? Do we have agreements on all three flood years?
Mr. Filmon: As the member may know, we still have not collected on our submissions for flood-related expenditures on the Assiniboine River in 1995 or the Red River in 1996, and we have had interim payments on Red River flooding of 1997 to the tune of $55 million towards the 1997 expenditures, which will probably end up being close to $300 million, so there is still a lot of money that will have to be collected but, in fairness to them, I would imagine that all the bills probably are not yet submitted. There is probably a lot of paperwork on our part to be completed. Certainly I think the '95 and '96 bills have long since been submitted but an indication of the slowness of the normal system of review and auditing that goes on, there are many outstanding issues, not the least of which is commitment to long-term floodproofing, which is where we believe the major emphasis should continue to be.
* (1600)
We want to be able to be assured of protecting as much of the area that is flood prone on the Red River Valley as possible. We should hopefully gain and learn from the experience of 1997 by saying that wherever people are in a vulnerable position, they should either be made aware that they have a responsibility to self-protect, or else we should provide them with an alternative if community ring-dikes can be built. So we have got the flood-proofing program which I think is now estimated at about $60 million thus far, and that is the ones that are most easily protected. The only commitment that we have got to that is $12 million, which the federal government committed way, way back, about a year ago.
We are in final discussions on the expansion of that program. We have made the commitment that at least $60 million has to be expended to do the very obvious areas that are vulnerable and in need of protection. We still do not have the federal partner coming in for 50 percent of that.
Mr. Doer: I believe it was the May long weekend last year, there was a discrepancy between a public statement, a clash of public statements between the Premier and the lead minister of Manitoba, the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy. His statement was that they could not approve anything at the last cabinet because there was no submission from Manitoba. You then subsequently produced a letter that you tabled in the House, and tabled with the public, said he was wrong. He then came back and said, as I recall, that the letter had too much in it. After he said he did not get something, then he said the letter had too much in it.
What is the present state of that letter that you sent in terms of the negotiations with the federal government? How much have they accepted as legitimate claims for the people of the valley? How does that apply to people outside of the valley that had been flooded in the past, like Winnipegosis, the Shellmouth Dam, citizens adjacent to the Shellmouth Dam, the Assiniboine River and others that obviously are flooded in Manitoba but outside of the Red River Valley?
Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Mr. Filmon: The information that the federal lead minister was looking for, obviously he eventually did find, and I think one of the areas of confusion was that it was in the hands of a federal department in terms of detail and all that. It was in their process and perhaps not directly in his hands, but anyway it has been in process. We continue to be seeking their commitment to a whole variety of areas of support, including for the City of Winnipeg which was not approved by the federal government, including for repairs and upgrade to the floodway as a result of the 1997 flood, and including so many areas of flood proofing in the valley that involve community ring dikes and local area ring dikes and local protection works, so all of that is still in front of the federal government awaiting their response. We understand that we may get the response in the not too distant future.
With respect to areas like Winnipegosis, I believe, and Shellmouth that the member opposite raised, those are not included in the guidelines that the federal government has set out for potential flood proofing or compensation beyond anything that has already been submitted to them from the 1995 flood in the Assiniboine Valley. We have had a pretty direct statement from them that they will not consider any other works other than in the Red River Valley. I believe that they also have allowed us to include some areas of damage that occurred when the Assiniboine diversion into Lake Manitoba was used.
Mr. Doer: So when does the Premier expect the--I am not even going to ask about '95-96. He should have heard a long time ago. I had raised the question of whether he raised this on the Team Canada trip in '96 when they were spending 10 days on the plane with the Prime Minister, whether he thought he could get some success out of that. Regrettably it has not been concluded. When do we expect an answer on the actual '97 flood, if we are in for 300 million? If the total cost is 300 million, when do we expect an answer about how much the federal government will cover under the 90 percent guideline and how much they will cover under other formulae that they will use?
Mr. Filmon: The member opposite probably knows that there was much of it done under 90-10, but two areas of programming, the business compensation, small business compensation and the farm compensation, and the areas that were outside the federal guidelines that included things like rental properties, vacant properties, and I forget what the third area was--part-time farmers. All of those areas the federal government would not include under DFA, and we eventually negotiated a 50-50 cost-shared program for all of those areas.
* (1610)
So I could not tell him at the moment how the proportion works out, but our expectation is that we will end up paying about 50 million out of the total bill that we think may approach about 340 million. Our share will be in excess of a hundred million out of a total $340-million bill. The reason that comes out to much more than 10 percent--it comes out to somewhere between 25 and 30 percent--is because much of those costs were now shifted into a 50-50 mode, because we ultimately felt that those claims should be compensated. The feds said fine. Well, we do not have anything under DFAA for it, so we will come up with a separate ad hoc program for farms, for businesses and for all these three categories that were not covered in housing under DFAA, and that is why our share is much higher than most people believed it should be.
I am told that these 50-50 side programs are consistent with what was done by the feds in Saguenay and possibly some of the Edmonton 1987 tornado settlement. So where we could not convince them to put it under DFAA, we were able to convince them to have a separate side program, provided we were prepared to put 50 percent of the funding in, and that is how we have arrived at these obligations that we are attempting to pay now.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Chairman, if I might have the indulgence of the House to stay seated while I ask my questions on Riverton Boat Works. I really do appreciate the Premier giving me the opportunity just to raise some issues with this. We could, of course, have done it through the regular opportunity of writing, and I am sure the Premier is more than aware of this situation. Letters have gone to him over the many years past since--I remember 1990-91.
I guess in speaking to the family just a few days ago about this issue and as the Premier is probably aware, the president of the company, Mr. Ken Thorsteinson, had passed away this fall and the legacy of this issue still stays with the family. They do want to get it resolved, Mrs. Thorsteinson and the family.
Going back, and I know the Premier and his staff were made aware that certain events were occurring going back to February of '97 where the Riverton Boat Works and the Thorsteinson family was informed that there seemed to be a deal on the table, that negotiations were being done at that period of time. In the following period of time, Mr. Thorsteinson was assured by Dr. Jon Gerrard who was secretary for the department that was dealing with it and all of a sudden--and after that letter of December 3, 1997, but previous to that September, Mr. Leitch was good enough to respond to Mr. Thorsteinson's letter to you, and he, too--obviously, by his letter Mr. Leitch was advised that the claim would be settled in the very near future without any real explanation from the minister himself but from one of his executive assistants, Mrs. Thorsteinson now and Riverton Boat Works was informed that there was no deal on the table. There was not going to be any kind of compensation for this long-standing issue.
I guess what the family is wondering is the part that was played by the Premier's Office and was there any correspondence, was there any contact with the federal government, Transport Canada, on this, and what was the Premier's Office feeling on this and whether the fact that they thought, as well as Mr. Thorsteinson at that time, that the deal was going to be made?
Mr. Filmon: This issue certainly does have a long history. I recall, actually, correspondence from Felix Holtmann when he was member of Parliament and was advocating for the Thorsteinsons and attempting to do what he could through the federal system to arrive at an acceptable agreement for them.
When Mrs. Thorsteinson wrote to me, I had the letter referred to the Clerk of the Executive Council, Mr. Leitch, who used his contacts at the federal level to attempt to find out whether or not something was being done on it. It was indicated by senior people in the federal system, particularly the Department of Western Economic Diversification who are not the responsible department but the ones that had been staffed to Dr. Gerrard when he was the minister, and Dr. Gerrard, to our knowledge, had advocated on behalf of the Thorsteinsons that a settlement be entered into by the federal government.
It was, I guess, Ports Canada and the Department of Transport federally, and it was the understanding of the senior officials in Western Economic Diversification that, due to Dr. Gerrard's efforts, a recommendation for settlement was sitting on the Minister of Transport's desk in Ottawa at that time. This was, I guess, about early September that Mr. Leitch was told this, and he wrote that to Mrs. Thorsteinson.
Subsequently, after we were contacted again by the Thorsteinsons late in the year, we now utilized our contacts in Ottawa to try and verify what had happened to it, and apparently I guess it was turned down at the ministerial level. So they then subsequently informed the Thorsteinsons. We are completely at a loss to do anything further since this is total federal jurisdiction, total federal responsibility, and our reason for being involved was to try and help a small Manitoba business which was placed in a difficult and we think unfortunate position by the federal government department's decision. Despite our efforts to advocate on their behalf, we seem to have reached the end of our road in our ability to help them.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Premier for those comments. I do have the letters from Randall McCauley on behalf of David Collenette, the Minister of Transport. I find it, as the Premier says, I find that I believe anyhow that after dealing with such an important issue to this small business and to people, the Thorsteinsons, that an executive assistant would send with his signature on a final letter saying no, on an issue that has been long outstanding, and I think the Thorsteinsons are responding to that correspondence. The Premier's Office will be getting copies of that.
They also wish for myself and anyone else that would be able to continue pursuing this on their behalf to write, not only to the minister and as we have done before, write to the Prime Minister with this issue and request that a meeting take place, even if it is in Ottawa, to go to Ottawa and meet with the Minister of Transport to really get face to face, deal with the issue and try and resolve it to what again, and I say again that the Thorsteinsons and I believe others were given the impression early in 1997 that this was going to be finally settled after many, many years.
* (1620)
In one of his letters the executive assistant claims that there was some sort of a court decision made. Well, that in fact is not the case. It never did go before court to be resolved. There was always that threat of going to court but being an agreement with the province, it was a federal-provincial agreement for this. The Thorsteinsons feel that support from our province be provided, support in whatever which way we can provide support to have this matter looked into even further.
You know, I strongly believe, as the Thorsteinsons do, that there is something that is missing. There is a missing link from the federal side of it, and the only way that I feel to address it, and the Thorsteinsons do too, it is their suggestion that with support from the Premier's Office, with support from myself, support from the federal M.P.s here in Manitoba, that such a meeting would put it on the table. Let us get it decided on and let the minister and the Prime Minister, if so be it, tell the Thorsteinsons that there is not going to be any settlement. I think that is where the Thorsteinsons want to go.
I know the Premier said that it is tough because they have just pretty well washed their hands of it. The feds have said no, but I think, if we could agree to support the Thorsteinsons in a combined effort to have some meetings done and request that these meetings be initiated by the feds and they are more than willing--they were even told by the feds, their lawyer was even told by the feds, to get prepared for it, and lo and behold, meeting with family members yesterday, he says we got a bill in the mail from the lawyers saying here is our bill for dealing with this settlement. They get a letter, as the Premier has received also a copy saying, there is no settlement.
We did an investigation. Well, there was never this investigation that they talk about. They were never contacted during this time. Thorsteinsons and Riverton Boat Works were never contacted during this alleged investigation into the matter, so with the Premier's indulgence and support I hope I would like to initiate anything that we can do on behalf of the Thorsteinsons to not let this go away. They are not letting it go away. They do not want to just accept it without really having the truth brought out.
Mr. Filmon: I must say that I am very supportive of the argument that the member puts forward. It seems like a terribly unfair situation. I just want to say that I thought we were at the end of the road in terms of our ability to do something, but Ports Canada has been a particularly bad and difficult group to deal with for Manitoba.
You may recall that about five years ago we had to initiate proceedings to go to a lawsuit to have them pay their electricity bill to Manitoba Hydro from the port. It was substantial. It was in the millions of dollars that they owed, and we eventually, by initiating the action, did get them to pay the bill. It seems incredible that you would have to do that to a federal Crown corporation.
I have just been handed a copy of the Canada-Manitoba Subsidiary Agreement on Churchill, which was signed in 1984 by the federal government, Mr. Axworthy, as Minister of Transport, along with the Province of Manitoba, the New Democratic government of Mr. Pawley. In it, under Program B, Port Infrastructure Improvements, is a Clause 3, which outlines the responsibilities that Ports Canada will take as part of this agreement. It says: Tug construction. Ports Canada will commission the construction in Manitoba of a new 2,600 horsepower tugboat to replace the W.N. Twolan. The tug would be designed to fulfill the primary task of ship-berthing at the Port of Churchill with the necessary equipment to carry out the various other tasks required of it. It is estimated that construction could get underway within eight months. Canada will reimburse to Ports Canada all expenses which it may reasonably incur in connection with the construction of the tug up to a maximum of $3.44 million.
This may be something that the new Minister of Transport is unaware of, and maybe if we bring this to his attention, and cc Mr. Axworthy who signed this agreement originally, we may get some further ability to open the door.
So I am going to ask my senior staff who brought this to my attention just now to develop that letter, and will cc the Thorsteinsons and yourself to ensure that you know what is happening, and we will see if this has any impact.
Mr. Clif Evans: I thank the Premier for those comments, and, on a final comment, I am pleased to see that we have seen perhaps something. The family itself, with this issue, one of the sons, in dealing with his dad on this for the many years, has picked apart the agreement. All the correspondence has notes on it and in the computer that would perhaps even provide us with even further information once I talk to them and show your comments, where we might be able to go with this.
We will also be initiating letters to the Premier for his support and help, and also to the federal minister with respect to this, and we certainly do not want to see it closed. All the support that we can get for Riverton Boat Works, we would really greatly appreciate from the government of the day, and I will continue the correspondence and information with the Premier and his staff on that. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Mr. Filmon: I thank the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), and I assume it is Mr. Miles Thorsteinson that he is speaking of. If he could contact Mr. Leitch and provide copies of anything that he thinks might be relevant to the case that could add to what information we have, we will proceed to do our best to help him on this issue.
* (1630)
Mr. Doer: I just have a few more questions on the Estimates of the Premier. When the Premier approves the education financing for a fiscal year, does the government take into account the ministerial Advisory Committee on Educational Finances?
Mr. Filmon: It is a ministerial advisory committee, and that committee would supply that advice to the minister. I have not seen any copies of information that they might have provided to the minister, but I would be almost certain that she would take into account their advice when she makes her recommendations to Treasury Board or cabinet on issues.
Mr. Doer: So is the Premier stating the last two years that this report has been submitted he has not had a copy to read prior to the decisions being made on education finances?
Mr. Filmon: I do not get copies of every report that goes to the ministers. That is not the nature of the cabinet system of government. The ministers do have their responsibility and authority which they are held to by this House and by me, so I would say that I would be almost certain that I had not seen it. Having said that, that would not mean that from time to time some things do not get sent into my office.
Mr. Doer: I know the Premier walks down the halls with clippings falling from every different direction from all over the country. Perhaps I am just suggesting that those great clippings that he has I know are also not his responsibility. He has them flailing all over the place sometimes. We like to sometimes intervene in his great speeches and get him off on his clipping file when we need a little levity in his speeches.
I know he just loves having newspaper clippings, as I say, from every part of the country and every part--perhaps he could read 10 less clippings a year and read 10 pages of administerial Advisory Committee on Education. He might find it interesting. I would just encourage him to do so. Nothing wrong. He has his clippings going, and he has got clippings as I speak.
Does the Premier, who reads, as I say, clippings from far and wide, read the Council on Post-Secondary Education Report that would come to the government?
Mr. Filmon: Certainly I am interested in so many matters that come before government that I try and keep in touch. I have met with various people from the council even in the past year, but I cannot say that I have committed the report to memory, so I know it is in my files. If the member wants to raise any issue with respect to it, I will try and respond.
Mr. Doer: Has the Premier reviewed and what is the state of play of the apprenticeship report that took some time to prepare, and how does this apply to the new federal-provincial agreement on human resource training in Manitoba?
Mr. Filmon: The apprenticeship report is by and large being adopted by government. The briefing which cabinet received from the minister on it I believe indicated that most of the issues that were being recommended were able to be accepted and dealt with by government. Funding has been provided for the various different areas that will require additional funding, and it is being dovetailed with the devolved authority for the various different Human Resource Development Canada functions that are being accepted under the administration of the Province of Manitoba under the devolution of authority for labour market training.
Mr. Doer: The federal government, through the formerly known Unemployment Insurance program and now in an Orwellian way called the Employment Insurance Program--
An Honourable Member: E-I-E-I-O.
Mr. Doer: Well, that is another way of calling it has formally purchased spots in community colleges as part of their training strategy. What has been the net number over the last three or four years in terms of training in our community colleges from the federal government, and what is the present status under the new provincial human resource regime?
Mr. Filmon: The federal government in recent years has certainly decreased its purchase of training spots from our community college system fairly substantially, and it has been an issue of concern that we have dealt with the federal government on. With the devolution of authority, I know that the community college is working with the provincial department to try and determine what is the best way of handling the training relationships, whether it is a matter of providing funding directly to the student or whether it is a matter of seat purchase as the best approach, and they are coming up with a plan as to how to do it under the new regime.
Mr. Doer: Will the Premier be able to give us numbers of how many people were paid for by the former system under the federal government for community college training versus how many will now--and I expect there will be a decrease prior to the so-called devolution--and what would be the current status? Is there an ability to give us the federal-provincial numbers going back to say '95, '96, '97 and now in the new regime in '98?
Mr. Filmon: If this were Question Period, I would say that is a question for the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training, which clearly it is. I do not have that information. I would have to get it directly from the minister and would be prepared to give it to the member, and then he can ask her questions of it in her Estimates, if that will be of some help to get it ahead of time. We will just check Hansard and make sure that we are getting the right information that has been asked for and provide it ahead of time, and then it can be the subject of discussion with the minister.
Mr. Doer: Thank you, and I would note that the Premier, I think, did sign the agreement last year I believe with the federal government.
I just have a question on Access programs. Over the years, Access program peaked at something over $10 million in terms of expenditure, partially funded, and then decreased by the federal government, partially funded, and decreased by the provincial government. The last numbers we looked at were in the $6-million range for Access. First Nations populations are growing. There are more young people graduating from high schools available now for post-secondary education and training, and yet there is less money available.
This is a program I think and I said during the evening when I was together with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) and many others at the Rainbow Society praising Ed Schreyer or regaling Ed Schreyer, as the case may be for the Minister of Agriculture--this was one of the tremendous successes, I felt, well in anticipation of a demographic challenge and a training challenge, from the Schreyer government, and I am personally very disappointed that the amount of money has been reduced both from the federal government's share and the provincial government's share.
* (1640)
Is there any attempt to look at the numbers of First Nations youth that are now graduating from high schools, the need that they would have for post-secondary education and training, and to look at a kind of 21st Century approach to the obvious challenges that we have in post-secondary education and training?
I think we have lost 10 years in this area by slowly--not even 10 years. I think the cuts started in the early '90s period. The money actually was enhanced from '88 to '92, and then it started to go down. Both the federal government did it and then the provincial government cut it. I think it is regrettable, in terms of long-term decision making, that we have cut this money.
Can we look forward to a kind of next century vision of Access and training that we saw certainly in evidence in the early '70s and maintained, I should say, by the Lyon government in the '77-81 period?
Mr. Filmon: As the member knows, there are large and growing demands for services to our aboriginal population in Manitoba and that we have in the throne speech covered many areas of expansion, Partners for Careers, other areas of investment in training and education that is growing.
There is no question, and I have said over and over again that the Access program has resulted in very many positive outcomes and has provided role models for young people in our aboriginal communities. I think the member should know that although funding has declined, primarily federal funding declined but there has been some decline in provincial support as well, that what we have done is that we have focused on ensuring that the numbers remain, and as our aboriginal people have indicated in many instances, they want to be treated equally to the rest of the students in society. The program now calls for them to share some of the responsibility by way of student loans, just as all other students in society do, and that has resulted in us being able to keep the numbers of trainees up.
We are very proud of the fact that we have--and I have met with them personally in many cases--graduate engineers, doctors, lawyers, social workers, teachers, that they are benefiting substantially from the program, and they are now required to take some of the support by way of student loan. That has been our way of ensuring that we attempted to keep the numbers up, and we are looking at the adequacy of the resources to ensure that where there are those who want to be in these programs that we can provide resources for them.
Mr. Doer: Well, the Premier and I have disagreed before on this program, and I will continue to register our disagreement. I think we are really missing a number of opportunities here and challenges as we move into training. I think we have a real substantial discrepancy on the basis of resources and the basis of need, and we are going in the opposite direction in my view of anticipating the future. We are going backwards in my view, and we will just leave it at that. We will just agree to disagree.
Finally, I have some other questions on the issue of the telephone system. Just a couple of questions. Who conducted the appraisal of the value of the phone system? The Premier has used brokers in his answers in Hansard in '96. He has used other people in his comments. Who conducted the appraisal to the provincial government of the value of the corporation?
Mr. Filmon: My recollection, Mr. Chair, was certainly that there were several brokerage firms who gave opinions on the value of the corporation, and, as I indicated, the amount that we eventually did receive was more than $100 million more than their estimates. As an objective, third-party check, we also saw an evaluation that was done for the telephone company by a chartered accounting firm that placed a value based on assets and business value. In all cases, we were confident that we were getting at least a reasonable price for the company based on those evaluations.
Mr. Doer: Will the Premier make those evaluation documents public and table those evaluation documents in this Chamber?
Mr. Filmon: Those evaluations were done by the company and are the property of the company, and I do not think I have any authority to release that information.
Mr. Doer: At the time that the evaluations were prepared for the company and for the ultimate shareholders, which was this Legislature at the time, the company was publicly owned. The documents were prepared prior to, I would imagine, it should be, prepared prior to January 1, 1997, and therefore would have been prepared for a public Crown corporation whose shareholders were this legislative body. So could the Premier not make those documents public because they were, as I say, prepared at a time when the Crown corporation was, in fact, a publicly owned nonprofit corporation, as opposed to today where it is obviously in a different status?
Mr. Filmon: I appreciate the point that the member is raising. Certainly, I am basing my response on advice that we have that it is the property of the corporation, but I will take another look at it based on his approach and see whether or not it is information that can be shared.
Mr. Doer: Can the Premier indicate what accounting firm prepared the information for the telephone system, and was it made available to government?
Mr. Filmon: I do not recall, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doer: Can the Premier undertake to get that information to us?
Mr. Filmon: I indicated that I would look into that, and I would treat all of the evaluations in the same way. If it is feasible to do so, I would undertake to investigate that.
Mr. Doer: The individual who did the legal work for the telephone system, was that Mr. Falk who was then working for Pitblado & Hoskin?
* (1650)
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Falk was an outside counsel for the telephone system, but in terms of doing the legal work surrounding the initial public offering, Aikins, MacAulay did one section of it, and Pitblado & Hoskin, principally Duncan Jessiman, did another section of it because Mr. Falk's expertise was not in that area so he did not work on the IPO, to my knowledge. Then Thompson Dorfman Sweatman worked on another facet of it.
One of the companies worked for the government, one of the companies worked for the telephone system, and one of the companies worked for the brokerage houses, and I do not recall which was which in the whole process.
Mr. Doer: But Mr. Falk worked for the telephone system, as he was an employee. He was a member of the Pitblado & Hoskin legal firm and then was hired by the telephone system to provide legal advice to the telephone system. He has subsequently become inside counsel for the new private company.
Mr. Filmon: Yes, he was the outside counsel doing the legal work for the telephone system as an outside counsel. He has now been taken in as inside counsel, which is not an unusual thing. This often happens in corporations where the person who is the outside accountant gets hired as the inside accountant, the person who is the outside lawyer gets hired as the inside lawyer, because they have the most knowledge of the corporation, having worked on the file for many years.
Mr. Doer: This, Mr. Chairperson, would conclude just a few of the questions we had to ask the Premier over the last couple of days in his Estimates, and we are prepared to pass the Estimates. There are no surprises this year, I regret to say, but we sought some information in the last two days.
We will continue to have major disagreements with the Premier on areas of health care, areas of dealing with the education policies of Manitoba, the whole area of the telephone sale, which we will continue to pursue. The Premier knows our disagreements in the past on the area of flood policy and compensation policy. It was not my intent today to repeat all our disagreements in the Chamber in the Premier's Estimates but to raise some questions that will help us debate matters in the future.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 2.1.(b) Management and Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,950,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $392,000--pass.
2.1.(c) Inter-governmental Relations Secretariat (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $345,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $66,400--pass.
2.1.(d) Government Hospitality $10,000--pass.
2.1.(e) International Development Program $475,000--pass.
At this time, we would ask the First Minister's staff if they could please leave the room, and we will now move onto the Premier's line, which is
2.1(a) Premier and President of the Council's Salary $42,000--pass.
Resolution 2.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,280,700 for Executive Council for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
This concludes the Executive Council. It is five minutes to five. Is it the will of the committee to call it five o'clock?
Mr. Doer: Well, I do not think it is, because, well, I do not know how we could do it, but with the committee, if you call it five o'clock, then the matter has to be dealt with. It is leave to recess for four minutes until the private member's resolution.
Mr. Chairperson: All right, the committee will recess for four minutes.
* (1700)
Five o'clock, time for private members' hour, committee rise. Call in the Speaker.