Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): The committee come to order. The Committee of Supply has before it for our consideration the motion concurring in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) some follow-up questions to the series of questions that we have been asking in this House on the very serious allegations that have been made against senior level officials and senior level members of the Conservative Party, indeed, including the Premier's campaign manager, but also the Premier's chief of staff, Mr. Sokolyk, who has been with him in that capacity since 1991.
The Premier, on Monday, indicated that he had conducted an investigation, and I want to quote. He stated: I repeat that I am satisfied from my investigations that our party and central campaign were not involved in that.
Well, Mr. Chairperson, we saw earlier today that essentially the Premier (Mr. Filmon) talked to a few people, did not specify who, and then when Elections Manitoba was indicating it would be investigating, strangely he stopped asking any questions himself. We find that hard to believe because I can tell you, if there was any accusation in our party of this kind of behaviour, I know that we would have found out everything if we did not already know the answers, and I find it strange that the Premier did not see that as being a problem. But he did not specify whom he met with, whom he talked to in this so-called investigation, which we found out today was somewhat incomplete.
I want to ask the Premier, first of all, did he discuss this matter with Taras Sokolyk, the chief of staff in the Premier's Office, and the campaign manager? If so, what was the response from that individual? When did the discussion take place, Mr. Chairperson, and on what basis did the Premier later say he was satisfied? Did he discuss this matter with Mr. Sokolyk?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I think it is only fair to point out that these are not only matters within the jurisdiction of me as the Premier or a member of government. These are matters of party politics, and those discussions, obviously, were ones that I would have as somebody who on behalf of the campaign wanted to have assurances about.
But those are private matters, and I know that the individuals to whom I spoke will be very happy to comply with and to participate in the investigations that are undertaken by Elections Manitoba. They were certainly quite prepared to co-operate with and comply with Elections Manitoba in the past, and they will be in the future, Mr. Chairperson, but I do not think that these are matters that I want to engage in or debate independently of what is a quasi-judicial independent review under the auspices of the relevant authorities.
It is not up to this Assembly to decide on guilt or innocence, on truth or falsehood, of the allegations being made. It is going to be up to an independent authority, and I place my complete trust and faith in that independent authority who is Elections Manitoba, Mr. Chairperson.
Mr. Ashton: Well, Mr. Chairperson, it can hardly be a private matter. Mr. Sokolyk, as the Premier's chief of staff, paid by the public, appointed by an Order-in-Council from 1991, this individual has been described as the eyes and ears of the Premier. Indeed, he was the campaign manager in the 1995 election, but he was also paid by the public of Manitoba. He is one of the highest paid government employees in this province, appointed by the Premier, and continues to sit in that role. In fact, we have suggested that Mr. Sokolyk, if he was to do the appropriate thing since he has been implicated in the serious allegations about corruption in the electoral process that that individual resign from his position pending the result of this investigation.
I want to ask the Premier, is he saying today, then, that he will refuse to provide any information about this matter, including his discussions with Mr. Sokolyk? Let us recall that this individual has been accused of being directly part of this plot, I would say, this plot of subverting the electoral process, indeed is quoted as saying "good job" to the individuals who did this. By the way, these are not just people that the Premier would not be aware of. These are Roland Cubby Barrett, well known to the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) and the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger), Cubby Barrett, on the PC Fund, a key fundraiser, one of the key people who was involved with this, certainly well known to that individual. Allan Aitken, by the way, who has been part of this, is the PC campaign manager in Interlake. We are, of course, intrigued by Mr. Kim Sigurdson who was a candidate in St. Boniface for the Tories.
I mean, these are not New Democrats we are talking about. These are Tories, but you know, if the Premier (Mr. Filmon) will not say on the record, chooses not to put on the record the information about whom he talked to--by the way, it was he on Monday who said he conducted the investigation. He offered that information as if it was--I want to read it again: "I am satisfied from my investigations."
What investigations, Mr. Chairperson, and, in particular, what kind of discussion did he have with Mr. Sokolyk, who is one of the most highly paid public officials in this province, the chief of staff of the Premier, the eyes and ears of the Premier? Is the Premier now saying he will refuse to answer questions about this matter, including questions related to the conduct of Mr. Sokolyk?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairperson, the member makes my case. The allegations against Mr. Sokolyk were not made against him as an employee of government. In fact, had he not taken a leave of absence to be the campaign manager and had he not been off the public payroll, he would have been violating The Elections Act and indeed his responsibilities in this Legislature, and that would have been the subject of a charge under The Elections Act.
So the member knows full well, unless New Democrats keep their staff on the payroll while they are working on election campaigns, and if that is the case, then we would like to know that so that we could lay some charges, Mr. Chairperson.
Mr. Ashton: Well, Mr. Chairperson, this individual, Mr. Sokolyk, has been accused of being part of this entire plan, a plan that was to run three bogus candidates, to finance the campaign. And the Premier (Mr. Filmon) laughed about this, but I say to the Premier, I do not know of too many situations in the past where I have seen people working for the Tory campaign like Mr. Carl. But just coincidentally, you know, I can see the truck driving through the Interlake, P.C. signs on the right, native voice signs on the left. Does anybody expect us to believe that Carl Barrett was doing this out of the goodness of his heart?
* (1520)
The Premier dismissed this. He says, bah, people put up signs all the time. I tell you, I have never seen people putting up signs for two parties. I get back to the member for the Interlake (Mr. C Evans) who talked about having to run against two Tory candidates, the official one and the bogus one that was put up by his chief of staff, Mr. Sokolyk, to try and split the vote. By the way, I give credit to the people for Interlake for the support, and in Swan River and in Dauphin, but we know what the name of the game was.
I want to ask the Premier: is he saying that he has no concerns about the fact that Mr. Sokolyk has been accused of attempting, in fact, has been accused directly, of a plan that involved corrupting the electoral process? I believe a noted constitutional authority said that it was political fraud, that if these facts are proven, it is a political scandal of the highest order. Is he saying as Premier he has no problem with Mr. Sokolyk continuing now to be his chief advisor? Presumably not only on day-to-day issues, but it was yesterday, we were in Bill 2 in the committee and I was actually expecting Mr. Sokolyk to be there. I suspect he may have had some role in advising the Premier on The Elections Act.
I just want the people to have this picture. Taras Sokolyk is accused of a plan to subvert the electoral process. The Premier says, oh, that was his other hat on. But now he has got the role on of chief of staff, he has no problem with, what, Taras Sokolyk advising him about everything including The Elections Act?
I want to ask the Premier: does he not feel that given the accusations about the serious ethical breach on the part of Mr. Sokolyk, clear accusations, does he not feel that it is inappropriate for Mr. Sokolyk to continue to be on the payroll as his chief of staff, one of the highest paid individuals in this province when there are clear questions about Mr. Sokolyk's role in what we feel is a very unethical and corrupt plan to corrupt the electoral process? Does he not see the inconsistency?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I see this as a very serious issue, and I know that Mr. Sokolyk will co-operate fully with the investigation that is going to be done by Elections Manitoba, because I know that he regards this as a very serious issue. The only thing I would say in response to the remainder of the member's statement is that we live in a society, which I hope will not change, in which one is innocent until proven guilty and that the mere fact that political allegations are made by people who have a great deal to gain politically by making the allegations is not a basis of jumping to the conclusion that the allegations are true or that the individual who is accused is guilty.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairman, I find the last comments of the Premier to be absolutely incredible, because the source of a significant part of this besides Mr. Sutherland who was the individual that was taken advantage of--I think most Manitobans saw that very clearly in Mr. Sutherland's case. We are talking about people, the key players in this, they are all Conservatives, not about New Democrats. We are talking about the former campaign manager in the Interlake. We are talking about Mr. Allan Aitken, Mr. Cubby Barrett, one of the key fundraisers for the Conservative party. You know, Cubby Barrett, that name has come up in this House a few times, Kim Sigurdson. I mean, he ran for the Conservatives in St. Boniface. Yes, the political axes to grind here, it just amazes me that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) would stand in this House and suggest that. [interjection]
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask members to refrain from putting comments forward whilst--[interjection]
Mr. Ashton: I am getting advice from my member.
Mr. Chairperson: Could I ask members to refrain from talking out or giving advice while the member is speaking. It interrupts my thought process.
Mr. Ashton: It does not interrupt my thought process, and I appreciate the encouragement from the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). This Mr. Kim Sigurdson was at the reception following the election in 1995. Who invited him? I can tell you, I did not invite him. The member for Transcona did not invite him. The member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans), no, did not invite him. [interjection] Well, did not go, indeed.
You know, Mr. Chairperson, what we have essentially here are the basic accusations coming from one candidate who was involved, Mr. Sutherland; and No. 2, it comes from senior Conservative officials--I mean, the campaign manager in the Interlake, Kim Sigurdson, your candidate.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Can I ask honourable members to put their comments through the Chair so that we have an opportunity for Hansard to pick everything up after this debate?
Mr. Ashton: Well, indeed, Mr. Chairperson, we see again, Kim Sigurdson. I want to quote from the transcript. Former PC candidate. This is a direct quote: What the Conservatives in my opinion were doing was trying to offset the votes by using, exploiting these three aboriginal candidates.
He went on to describe a meeting between Allan Aitken and Taras Sokolyk at a Winnipeg hotel to discuss various matters and that the subject of the Native Voice campaign came up. What did Mr. Sigurdson, the Conservative candidate, St. Boniface, say? This is on the public record. This is, to the Premier, something that has been stated publicly by one of his former candidates. We sat down and the conversation was between Mr. Aitken and him at the time, and they started talking about giving money to three aboriginal independent candidates up North.
A job well done. I remember that term being said. The reporter asked: "A job well done. That was from Taras Sokolyk?" Mr. Sigurdson replied, and this is a direct quote: That was from Taras Sokolyk and Mr. Aitken. The reporter: In response to what? Mr. Sigurdson: As a response that the money was delivered to the aboriginal candidate.
So the accusation in this case is coming from a former PC candidate who was at the meetings. But I want to get back again to the Premier because it struck me in Question Period as the Premier put on the record that the so-called investigation he had conducted really was talking to a few key officials whom he now refuses to name in this House, a few key officials. And then when Elections Manitoba was investigating it, he said he did not follow it up anymore. I wonder what kind of sense of ethics this Premier has about his political party if there are accusations, political fraud, corruption of the electoral process involving not Joe Blow, Joe Q. Public, but the campaign manager in Interlake, the campaign manager implicated in that.
Cubby Barrett, 1995, Cubby Barrett's name became public at that time. Key fundraiser, Cubby Barrett, directly involved in funding this. That is information that the Premier would have been aware of at the time. Is he then saying, and assuming he did not know what was going on, this is all based on that assumption, because, quite frankly, the more one gets through the facts in this case, one wonders what kind of response the Premier, Mr. Sokolyk and others would give under oath on this matter because I really question, we have serious accusations about this Mr. Sokolyk, the campaign manager.
I really wonder, indeed, how the Premier (Mr. Filmon) would not know what was going on in his campaign, and he said that he asked people about it, so at some point in time he must have asked Mr. Sokolyk. I find it amazing he will not deal with that, but does the Premier not understand, even to this day, that essentially what he has shown is he had no concern about the lack of political ethics shown by this action by his party? He confirmed that. He did not investigate it further. Presumably, he did not ask questions until we raised it in the House, until it became a major issue with new evidence. In fact, even on Monday, he was saying there was no new evidence. He said, no, I had my investigation; oh, it is dealt with. End of discussion. I repeat that I am satisfied from my investigations that our party and central campaign were not involved in that.
* (1530)
Now, is the Premier constructing a wall now, an excuse? On Monday, it was, oh, hey, I am open, I conducted an investigation. Oh, my party did nothing wrong, I am satisfied with that. Today, it is I am not going to answer these questions because they relate to the political party not to the government of Manitoba, when one of the key players wears both hats. Is that now going to be the position of this Premier? Why is he afraid of answering these questions? Why will he not put on the record--I mean, he had no problem talking about this bogus investigation he ran on Monday. We are supposed to just take that. You know, trust me, I am sure, were about the only two words that were not in here. Let me make this perfectly clear, it was not in either. [interjection]
Well, yes, I found it interesting that the Nixon movie was on last night. I just thought it was kind of fortuitous circumstances because there was--by the way, and I just want to stress this, Richard Nixon did not order the break-in, but he knew about it, found out about it and covered it up, did not get rid of the people involved with it and lied to the Congress and would have been impeached. An interesting parallel, because what the Premier knew or did not know, we want to know what happened following that point in time.
I want to ask the Premier again: who did he talk to? Did he or did he not talk to Mr. Sokolyk about this matter at the time? I also want to ask, since the Premier intimated that he has since talked to--he said he knows that Mr. Sokolyk will be glad to testify. Now, these people talk on a daily basis. Can he confirm that he has now talked to Mr. Sokolyk? Can he put on the record what he is asking Mr. Sokolyk and what the response has been from Mr. Sokolyk? Not in 1995, if he refuses to answer, although I would like to have that on the record. I would like to know what he said in 1995, but I want to know from the Premier, since this individual still works for him, his eyes and ears, the man behind the machine, what has he had in the way of discussion with Mr. Sokolyk, and what was his statement in 1995 and 1998?
Mr. Filmon: Again, Mr. Chairperson, I would assure the member opposite that it would be inappropriate for me to be discussing matters that took place or actions of an individual who was not a member of my government staff at the time of the allegations, because under our requirements, government staff cannot continue to be on the government payroll if they are working on an election campaign. The New Democrats may do that and I would like to hear more about how they handle that. If they are suggesting that they do that routinely and that is the basis upon which we should be looking at this situation, we will have that investigated by Elections Manitoba as well, if they want to say that. But the fact of the matter is that Mr. Sokolyk was not on government staff, could not be under our election rules at the time of the allegations, and therefore that is not a matter that we will have investigated here.
I will assure the member that my discussions with Mr. Sokolyk are only to the extent to be assured that he will give full co-operation to any investigation with Elections Manitoba because we want to get to the bottom of this. We do not want to have to put up with unsubstantiated allegations and political manoeuvring from the member opposite, Mr. Chairperson.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, if they want to get to the bottom of it, they will have an independent, public judicial inquiry. They do not want to get to the bottom of this. We are seeing they do not want this to be public. We are seeing today the Premier hides behind this, oh, well, you know, I mean this was not the same Mr. Sokolyk who works for me. He had a different hat on at the time, but you know he still works for this Premier.
Even the Free Press editorial the other day, Tuesday, and I do not always agree with Free Press editorials, but you know it even said, the Free Press said: Mr. Sokolyk should resign pending the result of the investigation.
I want to ask the Premier: why will he not ask Mr. Sokolyk, if he wants to clear the air, to step aside pending the result of the investigation? Is he so close to this individual that he cannot see the fact that, so long as there is this cloud hanging over Mr. Sokolyk's head, during the time of the investigation the people of Manitoba will not care whether he was working for the Premier as campaign manager at the time, they see him working for the Premier today on the government payroll? Will he ask Mr. Sokolyk to step aside pending the results of this investigation? You can suspend him. You can suspend him with pay, but how can you expect him to continue to have any sense from the public of Manitoba, any sense of integrity of this individual with these accusations being made currently? Let the investigation take place, and then let us see whether Mr. Sokolyk should be reinstated.
Mr. Filmon: The member opposite, certainly, if he is a New Democrat, this is a new kind of democracy that we are seeing where the individual says that people are guilty before they have been through any due process and before they have had a chance to defend themselves under the law. Quite honestly, I am offended by that. I think that the member for Thompson ought to be ashamed of himself. That is an absolute travesty for anybody who says they are a Democrat to say that a person is judged to be guilty before an investigation has even taken place.
Mr. Ashton: The only person who should be ashamed is this Premier who sees nothing wrong with Mr. Sokolyk continuing to be paid by the public of Manitoba when serious accusations have been made. I want to say to the Premier that he might want to follow the example of his colleagues in Ontario, for example, the Attorney General, Mr. Runciman, I believe, who stepped aside pending and has stepped aside pending the investigations of whether in this case he broke the law. There are accusations about the throne speech in which an individual was identified that led to the identification of a young offender.
We have seen examples of that. Even Brian Mulroney, his friend Brian Mulroney asked people like Jean Charest to step aside. There have been numerous examples across this country where, when serious allegations have been made, people have shown integrity, and they follow through with it. I say to this Premier that you might want to recall back to somebody who had a lot of integrity, something he would do a lot to learn about, a Mr. Wilson Parasiuk who, based on nothing more than accusations made in a newspaper report, stepped aside, a cabinet minister who stepped aside pending a review of that and was reinstated. He had integrity. I remember this Premier--he talks about I should be ashamed. I remember his role in that particular incident and other incidents. I will remember the Premier's role, and I will remember, after what he has shown these few days, that it is pretty well a job for life in that government.
I do not know what it takes to be fired or asked to step aside in that government when you have Mr. Sokolyk. Even the Free Press is saying he should be asked to step aside pending the result of the investigation. To the Premier, once again the issue is not the guilt or innocence. That can be established by the judicial inquiry. The issue is how you can have this individual continue when there are serious questions about his ability to function in a way with any degree of integrity. Why will not the minister follow the same ethical standards that others have followed in similar circumstances, others who have shown integrity?
If Mr. Sokolyk will not do the right thing himself and step aside, will this Premier ask him to step aside pending the result of the investigation? Once again, the investigation will establish the guilt or innocence or culpability of this individual in this matter, but why will he not do what every other jurisdiction follows in the way of an ethical code and understand Mr. Sokolyk has got to step aside pending the investigation into this matter?
Mr. Filmon: I repeat, Mr. Chairperson, that this is an incident in which the investigation that is--and the allegations are alleged with respect to activities that were taken outside of government, and obviously a different matter from any of the ones that the member has referred to.
* (1540)
Mr. Ashton: So, Mr. Chairperson, is the Premier saying that he does not care what Mr. Sokolyk did when he was campaign manager for his party, it has no bearing on his current role? This is the individual that advises him on issues such as The Elections Act. He is the minister responsible. He was in committee yesterday. Mr. Sokolyk advises him on The Elections Act, advises him on The Elections Act. He does not see any difficulty with that. I am wondering, because I quoted yesterday from the Tory Talk and it is interesting, it talked about how Mr. Sokolyk was the one that got the job done, that never diverted from that. He got the job done. Now it is interesting that rhetoric because, you know, a good job. I remember when Mr. Sokolyk was supposed to in fact have said, according to his own candidate in St. Boniface, good job in setting up this aboriginal campaign.
Is he saying that he does not care what Mr. Sokolyk did? I am wondering, if that is the case, if he does not care what he did in the election, it has no relevance to what his current position, working for the Premier, being paid by the taxpayer, if he is saying that, is he not in a way indicating the root of the problem? I think what a lot of people have suspected for quite some time in this province, that this Premier and this political party will do anything to get elected, will say anything to get elected, will stoop to whatever level to get elected. Is that not the root of what happened in this case? They were willing to run three bogus candidates, three bogus candidates. They were willing to take advantage of individuals like Mr. Sutherland. I look to Mr. Cubby Barrett, who I believe has shown despicable, absolutely despicable behaviour in this matter. It is not the only matter unfortunately he has done that. Is that then the bottom line? I mean, we have suspected this since 1995 when we saw issues like the Jets. This is the same Premier that was out of the loop on the Jets, was campaigning on save the Jets, and a few days after the election was over said: oh well, you know, I did not know about this; I did not know what was going on.
We have seen on issues like MTS. We can get into the politics, but does the Premier not understand that he is now sending the message by refusing to answer questions about Mr. Sokolyk's role in this, that he does not care what he did in the election, he did not care what unethical behaviour took place, he did not even care enough--wants Elections Manitoba to launch this investigation. He did not call in Mr. Sokolyk or Mr. Aitken or Mr. Barrett or Mr. Sigurdson. He did not say what the heck is going on here. He did not call them in and say: this is not acceptable in the PC party. He did not say: we have ethical standards in the PC party. He did not do any of that, Mr. Chairperson. What he did, he said: oh, Elections Manitoba is looking into it; I do not have to worry about it anymore. And now, in 1998, when the new evidence comes out, he says: I do not have to answer that. Mr. Sokolyk was a different Mr. Sokolyk. He was the campaign manager, but whatever he did then, that is fine by me. Whatever it takes to get elected.
Watergate started from the same mentality. I would say this is starting to turn into Filmongate here. It starts from the same mentality, and I say to the Premier, because the Premier has desperately tried to go through and he goes around saying: you know, there are no scandals in my administration. Well, I guess if you set the ethical standards so low, you set them right on the ground, it is pretty difficult for anybody to get under them. Is that not what the Premier is saying in this case? It does not matter what Mr. Sokolyk said or did in the election, he is not going to remove him. I say to the Premier, who said I should be ashamed: should the Premier not be ashamed of not ever once questioning the root lack of ethics of what was done, and now refusing to answer questions about Mr. Sokolyk's role? I say to the Premier: why does he not do the right thing and ask for Mr. Sokolyk to step aside? That individual has no credibility pending the results of what we need, an independent judicial inquiry.
Mr. Filmon: This is the issue right here. We have a member who has put himself up as judge and jury. He does not question what was done, and he assumes that it is all true. He assumes that it was all done. He assumes that every single allegation has been proven, and of course that is not the case. Thankfully for the public, he is not the judge and jury in this. We have independent authorities. We have independent authorities who are nonpolitical. We have independent authorities who are set up with a force of law to be able to operate without the interference of political people such as the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), who would have already chopped off the head of the individuals against whom accusations have been made, who does not care about whether or not the case has been proven, who does not care as to whether or not there has been a proper investigation. He has jumped at his conclusion already.
I care very deeply about the process. I care very deeply about the integrity of what happens, what happens in the campaign, what happens in my office. The member opposite is making all sorts of assumptions, none of which are true. But I will not answer to him, I will answer to Elections Manitoba. I will answer to the independent authorities who we have set up to do the investigation, and I will answer to the public. I will not answer to a political phoney like the member for Thompson.
Mr. Ashton: Who the heck does he think he is, this Premier? He is the one who said: Madam Speaker, I repeat, I am satisfied from my investigations.
I could say a lot more about the Premier. Coming from Thompson, our language is a bit more colourful there, but here in the city I will tell him. He laughs. He was the one who had the nerve to stand up in the House and say: I was satisfied from my investigations.
Who was the judge and the jury? Who was the investigating authority in this case? He was. What was the extent of his investigation? He talked to a few key people. We do not know who because he will not put it on the record. He is afraid to. Did he say anything after Elections Manitoba started its investigation? No. Did he call them in to make them accountable? No. I really ask this to the Premier: did he ever question the ethnics and morality of Mr. Sokolyk? Of course not. Mr. Sokolyk did what needed to be done. Remember I phrased it before? Because this is a Premier who will do anything it takes, anything possible, and we see it on this particular case.
As for me being the judge and jury on this case, he still does not get it. When accusations are made, the practice--Wilson Parasiuk did this. He stepped aside. No one said that the allegations were proven or not proven, but because of the seriousness of the allegations that were made, he understood that in order to have any credibility in this House, the appropriate thing to do was step aside pending the results of the inquiry into what had happened, and he was vindicated.
I mentioned Mr. Runciman in Ontario. Even the Mike Harris Tories have got a higher ethical standard than this Premier (Mr. Filmon). Does he not get it, that what we are asking for in this particular case, when Mr. Sokolyk, the reason he should step aside, and I do not know if the Premier wants to throw the Free Press in as being judge and jury on this case, because they have also called for it.
An Honourable Member: Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.
Mr. Ashton: Well, the member says: careful what you ask for, you might get it. I can tell you right now if we get Mr. Sokolyk's resignation, I would be glad for that. If we get an independent judicial review, I will be glad for that.
The point of this is--and I say this to the Premier--is he then saying that Mr. Sokolyk will be in his position no matter what kind of accusations are involved, and they are very serious ones--I think the Premier will admit that whether he questions the facts of it or not--very serious allegations, that Mr. Sokolyk was involved in trying to corrupt--well, in fact, corrupting the electoral process? Is he saying that his position is unlike Ontario, unlike Manitoba with Wilson Parasiuk, unlike the Mulroney government? Now there is an ethical standard if you ever want one. You know, I have read On the Take. Like, boy oh boy, I do not think you have seen a federal government with a lower, lower ethical standard than that. But even that government understood when ministers and senior officials had no credibility left and should step aside.
* (1550)
So is the Premier saying that he has invented a new ethical standard, and in this case, Mr. Sokolyk, who will remain in place in his position no matter what accusations are made, no matter what is ongoing in terms of an investigation, that Mr. Sokolyk will be in place--and we do not know, by the way, how long this investigation will take--that he expects the people of Manitoba to have any comfort now when he, for example, shepherds through The Elections Act and is advised by Taras Sokolyk about The Elections Act, somebody who has been accused of running fraudulent campaigns, corrupting the electoral process.
I mean, does he not see that? You know, even if he does not understand ethics, and I think that is a reasonable assumption here from what we see. Does he not understand, in this particular case, that one of the reasons Mr. Sokolyk should resign pending the results of the investigation is how can anybody trust someone who potentially, in this case, has been involved in one of the most serious election scandals in many years in Manitoba? I do not remember anything of this level, and I certainly do not remember anything like this involving someone who is the Premier's chief of staff and campaign manager, his right-hand person.
Is he then saying it does not matter what accusations are made, no matter how much of a cloud hangs over Mr. Sokolyk's head, that he is going to sit there and get advice from Mr. Sokolyk on The Elections Act? I mean, The Elections Act is the most fundamental piece of legislation in this province aimed at preserving the integrity of the political process. I could think of a few analogies here, but I cannot think of anything more inappropriate than someone who has been accused of subverting the electoral process, being the key adviser to the Premier on the electoral process.
So I ask the Premier, and I am advised by the member opposite, the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), be careful, what you ask for may happen. We are asking for a number of things here, and to begin with, we are asking for an independent judicial review and that Mr. Sokolyk step aside pending the findings of the independent judicial review. I want to ask the Premier: will he do that, ask Mr. Sokolyk to step aside while there is any question involved?
I can tell you, Mr. Chairperson, in terms of the Premier's role, he is the one who is prejudging this. He believes that Mr. Sokolyk can do no wrong. He has said that. He is satisfied with that. He is the one who said he was satisfied with his investigations. We do not know what he said. We do not know if he even has asked Mr. Sokolyk what happened. He will not name the people he has talked to. All he has said in this House is that Mr. Sokolyk said he will testify. Well, I mean, that is some great encouragement.
We do not know if he ever asked Mr. Sokolyk did you do this. We do not know with the new evidence if he has asked Mr. Sokolyk were you part of this? We do not know that. I mean, is that how desperate this Premier is that he will defend Mr. Sokolyk to the point of not even asking him questions about this matter, of not asking him to step aside? I mean, does he not understand the political process well enough to know that if you ask people in Manitoba right now, I would say they would look at it this way. Serious accusations have been made, new evidence has been confirmed by Elections Manitoba. That is what we said on Monday. He denied it. Now it is Wednesday, very serious new allegations. Mr. Taras Sokolyk has been involved in this. That is the accusation.
Nothing the Premier can say or do takes away from the fact that it is a very senior official providing advice on The Elections Act right now, and he has been accused of serious misconduct. I would suggest to the Premier that he should be the first one to be calling for the judicial inquiry. If he is concerned about clearing the air and clearing Mr. Sokolyk and others that have been involved with this, why will he not do that? Ask Mr. Sokolyk to step aside. Why will he not call for an independent judicial inquiry? Simple question. Is the answer really that the Premier does not want all the true story to come out? Because we see that this corruption goes right to the top of the Conservative Party.
Mr. Filmon: The answer is that the Premier wants the entire story to come out. The Premier wants to have it done, the analysis and the investigation done by independent authority, not by the members of the New Democratic Party in this Legislature for their own cheap political purposes. The Premier wants this done thoroughly, completely and absolutely to the most complete degree possible. That is what will happen.
The member opposite, of course, wants to be antidemocratic and says that a person is guilty and have him step down and have his head chopped off, be guilty before he has even been investigated. Every example he gives me is of ministerial responsibility. Ministerial responsibility and authority are entirely different. He said that Mr. Sokolyk is shepherding the act through this Legislature. I as the minister responsible am shepherding the act through this Legislature. If he were there last evening, and he was, he would have seen that I am being advised by various members of the staff. They were all there, the law officers of the Crown, Madam Speaker. That is where I take my advice, and from the Chief Electoral Officer.
Every single one of those recommendations that is in that legislation came from the Chief Electoral Officer's office. That is how the legislation is being developed, and I am bringing it through with the consent, I believe, of all the parties who have had input to that. We have treated it on a nonpartisan basis in the past. I know the members opposite now want to trash Elections Manitoba and want to throw out that nonpartisan understanding and support of Elections Manitoba, and they can do that, but I will not engage in that. I will support the nonpartisan, nonpolitical foundation of Elections Manitoba and their actions, and I will continue to ensure that everything is done to co-operate with them, that everything is done to defend their integrity and their independence.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I too had a number of questions and have been waiting a few days during concurrence to ask some questions of the Premier on what I think are some really important issues.
Prior to getting into that, I did want to comment and pose a question again that comes out of Question Period from today to the Premier. I think that there are really two issues in this whole area. The one issue causes me to have great concern. In the discussions that I have had with members of the media, constituents, in a very limited way, I must say, with constituents, and others, the concern has got to be the need for independence with respect to Elections Manitoba and its office.
I think we have to establish the fact that Elections Manitoba is independent in its own nature and, as political parties, we need to support the actions of Elections Manitoba. If we do not do that, I think that we start questioning the integrity of the entire system. That is the reason why I suggested to the Premier in Question Period that the best way that we, as legislators, as political parties that are at least represented inside this Chamber is to deal with the issue of confidence, if we are questioning the confidence of Elections Manitoba, to deal with that through LAMC.
Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
I do believe that would, in fact, be an appropriate mechanism. Elections Manitoba and the Chief Electoral Officer do come before that committee in any given year. Given the serious nature of what has been happening over the last few days, I would think that it would indeed be appropriate to see if, in fact, Elections Manitoba would be prepared to come before LAMC just to hear concerns, and if it chooses to give some sort of a report, I think that would be a positive thing, Mr. Chairperson.
The issue itself that the New Democrats have brought forward is, in fact, quite legitimate. I think that the allegations are very strong. They merit attention, Mr. Chairperson, and I would applaud the New Democrats in bringing the issue to the attention of the public through this particular forum. Where I disagree is for the call of the judicial independent--or whatever it is that you want to call it--inquiry of sorts, primarily because I believe what you are doing by doing that is calling into question the integrity of the independence of Elections Manitoba, and I do not necessarily believe that that is in the long-term best interest.
* (1600)
In listening to some Manitobans, I think that what will happen as a result of that, they will question the legitimacy of the Elections Manitoba office. I speak first-hand. I have gone through four elections now, and I have had opportunity to complain directly to Elections Manitoba on very serious--and there is a huge gray area from brochures that are being swiped out of mailboxes to election signs being torn down. There are all sorts of things that occur during a 35-day campaign. I like to believe that candidates or individuals who are in a position of authority, upon finding out information of that nature, would, in fact, rectify the problem because that is something which we should not be condoning as actions being taken, Mr. Chairperson.
But it exists. Sometimes we cross the line, and we have to use our judgment. I would like to give an example of that. In the last provincial election, I had signs that were disappearing. We followed up as to where those signs were disappearing, and we found that there was a candidate who was literally going to the doors, suggesting to individuals that they should not be having that sign, that it should be taken down. We, in fact, went to some of those homes, and we got signatures to that effect, and we submitted our concerns, if you like, to Elections Manitoba in hopes that Elections Manitoba would deal with that issue. Were we happy with the way in which it was resolved? No, Mr. Chairperson, I would have liked, personally, to have seen something more positive from our perspective come as a result of that. But I accepted what it was and the actions that Elections Manitoba has taken because I think, all in all, with all the experiences that I have had with Elections Manitoba, they have been positive.
When we talk about concerns of this magnitude--and I think that the NDP have a concern of a far greater magnitude than what I have talked about. I think it does need to be addressed, and I would argue that there are other issues that should be addressed. My wife who happened to be at home on a couple of occasions when someone knocked on the door, the representatives who were requesting support were individuals who I would assume--because I know that they were members of a union--were from other provinces participating in that election. The whole issue of third-party advertising, all of those issues have an impact on the way in which local MLAs are, in fact, being elected.
Mr. Chairperson, I have brought issues of this nature up. I shared my concerns with Elections Manitoba in hopes that someday we will see the types of reforms that will make our whole system better. I would suggest that those are the types of examples that are very close to that line in which action has to be taken.
Well, I would argue that with the allegations that have been levelled, there is a great deal of concern. That is the reason why last night in committee I had taken the initiative upon myself to see if Elections Manitoba was aware, No. 1, and if in fact they were doing anything. I was told that Elections Manitoba had initiated on their own, as they should have. They were not told to do it. They initiated it on their own based on the integrity of preserving the integrity of that office.
I think that is an issue in which it is absolutely critical that as elected officials, as political parties that have representation inside the Chamber and for those political parties that do not have representation inside this Chamber, we allow Elections Manitoba to retain its integrity in ensuring that the system is, from my opinion, the best in the world. It does not necessarily mean it needs changes. It needs a lot of changes.
So I think that we need to be supportive of Elections Manitoba first and foremost. But that should not take away from the issue that has been brought up from the New Democrats over the last few days. I think that is something in which I would join with the concern that has been raised. I trust that Elections Manitoba will in fact expedite, will come up with some conclusions on this issue, and I equally feel very firm that the Liberal Party will in fact support what Elections Manitoba comes up with or concludes on, because if we do not believe that Elections Manitoba is doing the job or they were negligent, it is then for us, through whatever mechanism we have, to try to ensure that integrity is restored into that particular office.
We have to look at the broader picture, and that is what I would suggest to all members of this Chamber. That is the reason why I asked that LAMC, which is an informal gathering of elected officials from this Chamber, it is a body in which the Provincial Auditor, the Provincial Ombudsman and the Chief Electoral Officer all report to. It primarily deals with budgetary matters, but it also deals with other issues such as issues relating to future elections and past elections. That is where I participated in LAMC, where we talked about the needs of Election Manitoba's financial requirements and why they need the increases for computerization and issues of that nature and where the Chief Electoral Officer does not report to a political party. It reports to more of an apolitical group of individuals, because LAMC has a tradition of voting on a consensus basis, and because it is in camera, I believe that it takes a lot of that politics outside.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Over my 10 years I have seen very little, if any that I can recall offhand, information being leaked out of LAMC into the media. I think that is important, because then if we are in an in camera meeting, I believe that Elections Manitoba and MLAs can have more straightforward dialogue, because at times I think there might be a need to have the off-the-record discussions, and off-the-record discussions occur on numerous occasions inside LAMC.
Now, I do not want to be accused of saying that I am trying to cover it up through having an informal or the LAMC or an in camera meeting. There is another alternative, and that is going through Privileges and Elections. I would rather see it go through LAMC in order to preserve again the integrity of Elections Manitoba and that office, but if it is deemed that is not adequate enough, then I would be open to the idea of the Privileges and Elections as another alternative.
Mr. Chairperson, if we, as elected officials, believe in the integrity of the democratic process, if we really believe that the system we have, which does need some changes, is in fact the best in the world, we should be doing whatever is possible to reinforce the importance of that office, the integrity of that office.
* (1610)
You know, I had a chance to listen to five minutes of one of the radio stations in which an individual had called in and, in disgust, condemned Elections Manitoba. I do not think we are doing a service to the whole principles as to why it is that we are here and the need for that independence by feeding into things that do not exist, because if there is a lack of confidence in Elections Manitoba, I would have assumed--you know, in the military, in my training, I first learned that you do not assume. The military NCO at the time wrote the word in large print. He broke it according to syllables, and it does not look nice if you do that.
The bottom line is that this is something in which I did assume, and that is the integrity of Elections Manitoba. So I guess I would appeal to all members that we do what we can not to discredit the integrity of the Elections Manitoba office but to add to its integrity.
If we have concerns about the legitimacy of Elections Manitoba's biases or integrity and all those well-principled words that escape my mind right now, if we have concerns with respect to it, the proper protocol, I would suggest to you, is to raise the issue within LAMC, because LAMC is the only body in which we have elected representation from three political parties in which that issue can in fact be dealt with. If one of those political parties do not feel that LAMC has justifiably dealt with the issue of integrity within the office of Elections Manitoba, Mr. Chairperson, then and only then, I would argue, should we then be challenging Elections Manitoba in public.
For political parties that do not have representation inside this Chamber, I would suggest to you that there they might have to potentially lose the one opportunity of LAMC, but they can bring the issue publicly. I would suggest that would be a vehicle for them, but for us that are inside the Chamber, we do have another vehicle which can deal with the concerns that are being raised today which call into question the integrity of the office.
Mr. Chairperson, having said what I have said, it is not to take away from what I believe is a critically important issue that the New Democrats have brought up, along with other individuals. That is the whole issue of what has been alleged, that there has been money diverted from a political party to some independent candidates in the last election. It is not to take away from that. There appears to be substantial allegations, and, no doubt, that is likely the reason why Elections Manitoba is looking into it once again. We should, as legislators, be doing what we can to hold the government, in particular, the Premier, accountable for those actions.
A part of that, Mr. Chairperson, is in fact asking questions, as the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) did, with respect to the chief of staff. The Premier is the one that is in the best position to make a judgment call here. If I were in the Premier's shoes, I would think--[interjection] Then there is a very good chance that I will never be there, that is a given, Mr. Chairperson, given that I am not going to be running for the leadership and so forth, so I think that is a given. Maybe someday I might be in the government benches. That is something in which I can still have dreams for. Hopefully, it will be the short term as opposed to the long term.
Having said that, I do believe that the government does have, particularly the Premier, communications with the chief of staff. The Premier has to realize that he is in fact putting himself into more of a compromised position today, if in fact Elections Manitoba comes out with a ruling after addressing or looking into the allegations. If Elections Manitoba comes out clear that the chief of staff was in the wrong, the Premier is tying himself very closely, if not right in hands with the chief of staff, and there will be more of an obligation for the Premier to be held accountable for what the chief of staff did, even though he was not chief of staff at the time in which the so-called incident, the alleged incident, occurred.
I say that to him believing that the Premier, I trust, has had the discussion with his chief of staff and feels that confident that he is going to stand by his side through thick and thin, because if Elections Manitoba comes out taking issue with it, there are going to be a lot of unhappy Liberals, I can tell you that, that are going to be calling for a lot more of this government than what has been called to date.
Mr. Chairperson, the specific question, because I do want to narrow it down to a question for the Premier, is with respect to Question Period. In Question Period we talked about the LAMC. The government, I think, has at least indicated that it would be open to it. I think that there is some advantage in the sense that the government House leader is in a better position than I in ensuring, and it can be in the form of a note going to the chief electoral office that would go something to the effect that LAMC is prepared to make time on its next meeting on its agenda to deal with the issues raised in the last couple days, if Elections Manitoba feels it appropriate to come before the LAMC.
I think that is a reasonable request. I ask that of the Premier, because I think it can go a long way in addressing some of the concerns that members of the public--and I know that the Premier has a great deal of concern with what members and how it is being approached from the official opposition. Surely the Premier can agree that there is enough concern that this is one of the ways in which the Premier can deal with that while, at the same time, not take anything away from the integrity of the office of the Elections Manitoba and the chief electoral office. So I would ask that he would at least have that discussion with the government House leader.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairperson, I want to thank the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) for what was, for the most part, a reasoned and reasonable assessment, I think, of the issue that we face, particularly for his strong defence of the integrity and the independence of the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Manitoba.
Mr. Chairperson, I think one of the great travesties of these last few days has been the tendency of New Democrats to attempt to trash the integrity and the foundation of independence of the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Manitoba. We all need to depend on that independence and that integrity in the next election campaign, whenever that may be, and we all need to know that none of us in this Chamber can go and order, instruct or manipulate the office of Elections Manitoba. It is going to be very, very important for all of us to maintain the public's confidence in the office of Elections Manitoba, and I am appalled, quite honestly, at New Democrats' comments and, in fact, the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Doer) stern rebuke and criticism of Elections Manitoba. I think that will come back to haunt him as well as all of us in this Legislature as the public perceives that we are making Elections Manitoba, that he is making Elections Manitoba, a political football.
* (1620)
So, Mr. Chairperson, I want to thank the member for Inkster for putting some of those very, very appropriate comments on the record. I also want to suggest to him that I follow everything by way of a logical process, and with respect to decisions that have to be made, it seems to me that they have to be made based on the outcome of an independent review by Elections Manitoba. If any of the accusations or allegations are accurate, then that will trigger obviously a response, a response by whomever they affect, and I am quite prepared to take full responsibility for what has to be done as a result of the outcome of any investigation.
Although I say to him that I would not in any way stand in the way of the Chief Electoral Officer coming before LAMC--in fact, if he has anything that he wants to discuss on a nonpartisan, all-party basis, LAMC is obviously the place to take it, and I certainly am keeping tuned to his position and his comments with respect to this particular investigation. If it is his recommendation that certain things need to be done better, then we will certainly abide by that, because the whole electoral process depends upon an independent office running it, an office that has the integrity and the support of the public, as well as all the parties in this Legislature.
To this point, I believe that has been the case. We have gone through the bills that have been before committee, and the member opposite, I know, had different ideas about certain things within the bills. I said that my position would be to reflect what has been a consensus view of changes that needed to be made in The Elections Act and in The Elections Finances Act upon recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer, and we tried as much as possible to be responsive and open to those discussions. That is what is reflected in the bills that are currently before our House, Bills 2 and 3.
I want that to carry on that way, Mr. Chairperson, so we will carry on, on that basis, and although I have not fully, fully accepted the recommendation of the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), I think I am going a long way toward saying that the Chief Electoral Officer, in my judgment, has the ability to do what the member for Inkster is suggesting if he believes it is necessary.
Mr. Lamoureux: I did want to change topics and go into the reason why it is I was wanting to ask questions of the Premier last week. I understood that this was the first time in which he would actually be available for concurrence.
But prior to that, I did want to emphasize the importance that we not necessarily leave the issue where it is. I raised the concerns with respect to the chief of staff and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) tying his wagon, if you like, so closely and the potential outcome of that. I think there is a lot of merit to what the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) was saying with respect to LAMC and Privilege and Elections. It is something in which the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and I had often talked during Question Period in terms of how we would best hold LAMC accountable--I should not say hold Elections Manitoba accountable--but to assist where we can at addressing this particular issue in a positive way.
Having said that, the Premier, over the next number of months--and I have asked these questions in the past. Sometimes it is important to repeat questions, so the next series of questions is going to be somewhat repetitive in the sense that I think it is important to see if in fact the Premier has had the opportunity through other discussions to maybe change his views in some areas or possibly be a little bit more sympathetic to what I and many others, both from within our party and other Manitobans, want to see, I believe, happen, and that is the whole issue of the constitutional debate. It is not necessarily something which the public wants to hear at the doors, but it has always been an interest for me, and while it has bored others, it has been an interesting area for discussion for me in the past.
Having said that, I want to start off with an issue which we had talked about last year, and that was the whole idea of the offloading of responsibilities. The Premier in the past has always talked about how Ottawa has taken money away through cash transfers. He has used figures of $140 million, $220 million, and so forth. I do not necessarily buy into the figures. Quite frankly I think that the figures are wrong, and I would like to see where this $360 million was deleted in the last couple of years from the federal budget and transfer payments. I do not believe that is in fact the case, and I trust that maybe someday the Premier might be able to actually find somewhere where it shows $360 million coming out of the cash transfer payments to the province.
But I have always recognized the importance of cash transfer payments. I have recognized that it would have been much better had those cash transfer payments not been cut as dramatically as they were cut, but the difference between me and the Premier on this issue is that the Premier appears on the surface to support getting rid of the cash transfer payments in favour of tax point transfers. That concerns me greatly.
My question very specifically to the Premier is: can he indicate to us today what is his government's policy on tax point transfers versus cash transfers?
Mr. Filmon: I am absolutely flabbergasted to hear the member opposite say that he does not believe that the federal government has reduced the transfers to Manitoba by $230 million per year over a two-year period.
Mr. Lamoureux: Two twenty and 140. It is your figures.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable member for Inkster if he wants to put some numbers on the table, he should do it during his presentation and not enter into debate with the Premier at this time.
The honourable First Minister, to conclude his statement.
Mr. Filmon: We have had various projections by Ottawa, and the original projection was that over a two-year period we would lose $220 million. I think in reality it worked out to $230 million annual transfers. The reduction took place in two notches so that it was--[interjection]
Well, if you start adding it annually, it just keeps adding up, so that each year you add another, let us say, for argument's sake, $115 million approximately. [interjection] No, well, over a two-year period, it resulted in a $230-million annual loss, and that carries on year after year from now on because we are beyond the years in which the reduction took place.
An Honourable Member: Now it is starting to go up, is it not?
Mr. Filmon: No, no. The member asks whether or not it is going up now, and it is not going up. The only thing that was announced in the 1997 election campaign and then reannounced in this year's budget was that the next reduction, which was yet another I think $16 million or so, would not take place. But the $230 million has already taken place, and we continue to operate under CHST transfers with $230 million a year less than we did three years ago, Mr. Chairperson.
That is kind of an interesting thing because I believe that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is getting sucked in by the federal arguments that say that, oh, yes, but you cannot look at that, you have to look at equalization, and because we have got more in equalization, that offsets the reduction in the CHST transfer. That is where we keep separately the equalization side from the direct transfer side on the program side because equalization is intended to offset the effect of the fact that some provinces can get a lot more out of their own-source revenues.
* (1630)
One point of income tax in Manitoba is worth less than one point of personal income tax in Ontario or Alberta or British Columbia. In fact, there is a tremendous disparity between the value of one point of income tax. I guess the lowest is in Newfoundland, and the highest is in Alberta I think these days, and it is a tremendous difference. That is why equalization is there to offset that. So when we talk about tax point transfers, we obviously are interested in ensuring that we get the transfers with obviously the complementary equalization of those transfers continuing to take place.
I think it is interesting he should be interested in hearing it from a perspective of a province like Quebec. Quebec is not quite at the national average of the value of the tax point, but they are interested in getting it for the tax point transfers as well, even though under his theory they would not be doing as well if they got tax points, because they know that once you get tax points, the government cannot take that back from you. But when it comes to cash transfers, they went in one fell swoop, and they reduced by almost 40 percent their total transfers to the provinces. In over two years of budgets, they went from almost $19 billion to just around $12 billion of transfers, and that was an incredible reduction that they do just like that.
Frankly, it is the kind of thing that all governments ought to be worried about because it is too easy when we are talking about cash transfers for the federal government to make a unilateral decision, and it has not only been done by this federal government of Jean Chretien. It has been done by the previous federal government of Brian Mulroney, and prior to that by the government of Pierre Trudeau.
So we know that these things can happen unilaterally under our current system, which is why we have gone from 50-50 cost-sharing on medicare to now 15 percent being transferred to us on a cash basis. But even if we include the tax points that were transferred back 20 years ago, we are still getting less than a third of the total cost of medicare coming from the federal government, both cash and tax points, in Manitoba.
That is the kind of travesty that we are in because federal governments can too easily cut their cash transfers. That is why many, many governments are saying, fine, as long as we have the parallel support of equalization and we are getting equalized tax point transfers to us, then we ought to take a look at having control over more things from our own tax sources because we know right now today. I mean I can do a balance sheet for member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) that will show him how much more the federal government is taking out of our province than what they are putting back in, in so many sources.
In the EI account today, there is a $300-million net transfer going out of Manitoba to the federal government in Ottawa. That is $300 million more taken out by way of premiums by individuals and companies--[interjection]
An Honourable Member: On a per capita, it is a little more than any other province.
Mr. Filmon: Oh, it is. It is considerably more. The member opposite does not understand that, that this is now the source of a massive transference, a massive transference basically from western Canada to Atlantic Canada and Quebec through the EI account. The reason--[interjection]
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster is getting involved in a debate. He has posed the question. I would appreciate it if he waited until the answer is complete, and he can correct what he wants after.
Mr. Filmon: The issue is that Manitoba is not a large economy province. Manitoba has a traditionally low unemployment rate. Therefore, the passive support to unemployed individuals coming in here has always been much less than that that has been paid into the provinces in Atlantic Canada or Quebec, for instance. In addition to that, there is not a lot of money, not that it is not a proportionately greater degree of money, going into training for people because, again, of our low unemployment rate and the economy being relatively healthy vis-a-vis other parts of Canada, particularly east of the Ottawa valley. Again, there is no justification Ottawa believes for putting money into training programs. They do not even recognize that we have specialized needs for aboriginal people living in the cities. They do not put nearly enough as they should into those programs. But, they take out $300 million net out of Manitoba for EI from a province that is not one of the big wealthy provinces of Canada, and it is one of the highest proportions that is being taken out of our province for Ottawa.
You take a look at fuel. They are taking something approaching $150 million a year in fuel tax revenue out of our province and putting zero back into highways. So it is a transference, something that they can now--I laugh at the Prime Minister saying he is afraid that if he put more money into health care transfers to the provinces, we would spend them on roads. He is taking road taxes out of Manitoba, putting none of it back into roads and, in fact, using it to redistribute for programs going to other provinces in Canada. He is doing the same thing out of the EI account.
Another issue, of course, is income tax, personal income tax. For every dollar we take in personal income tax from our population, Ottawa takes two. Corporate income tax, for every $1 that we take, Ottawa takes, I believe, about $2.5 out of our province. GST applies to a much broader basket of goods, so for every dollar we take in PST, Ottawa takes about $1.3 in GST out of our province. Where does it all go?
Well, not enough of it goes back into Manitoba. The member for Inkster, of course, sees himself as the defender of the Liberal government in Ottawa here. He is Ottawa's ambassador to Manitoba, Mr. Chair. [interjection] I think that the Prime Minister would say that I have not been one of his most vocal and virulent critics. I have always attempted to get along with the Prime Minister. I have always said good things about him. We have a good personal relationship. I think that the path that his government is on is seeing more and more back to the old style of Trudeau Liberals, where it is central control, redistribution is the name of the game, and you take from any area of the country that is doing well, you penalize them and you give it to other people.
We have two economies. I mean, there are some good articles written in The Globe and Mail not all that long ago about the two economies in Canada, which is Ottawa and the West, and Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Unfortunately, Ottawa does not see its role to try and do things to ensure that those that are doing well have the tools to continue to do well. They see it as an opportunity for a tax grab to then just subsidize others and pay them not to work.
You do not build economies on 16-week jobs. You do not build a strong foundation for the future on 16-week jobs, yet Ottawa continues to play that game, whether it is with the son of TAGS program in Atlantic Canada, with provinces continuing to argue that they should pay fisherpeople to stay at home, and instead what they ought to be doing is getting them oriented to working where there is work.
We have skill shortages here that now number in the thousands of jobs going begging in this province today. I have not seen the circumstances that we have here today for probably more than a generation, that you can go down many, many streets and you can see signs, these mobile signs that tell people that there are jobs available, just apply within. We have so many areas of our economy in which we have jobs available. Just earlier this week, I was at Isobord. It is not even open yet, but it is hiring people. There are over 200 people working there in the final crescendo of the construction phase, and they are hiring some of the specialized people for some of their processes. I spoke to two young women who are in quality control, one just here within the last three weeks from Ontario, the second here from British Columbia, because we do not have enough people in these specialized areas to take these jobs.
* (1640)
This is a wonderful opportunity for us, and what Ottawa is doing is attempting to undercut and undermine our ability to continue to grow that process and, in fact, keeping people at home in Atlantic Canada and Quebec who may have the skills to take these jobs. But there is no incentive for them because they are being paid to stay at home without a job with all of these different programs and these redirections. It is not right. The member opposite, I think, should take a look at a Manitoba perspective instead of just simply attempting to defend Ottawa's actions in this regard.
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, Mr. Chairperson, I guess, you know, in listening to the Premier's response, he addresses a number of issues which I take really quite exception to. He says, well, Manitoba gives net $300 million more to Ottawa and how cruel it is and all this kind of stuff. When you talk about per capitas, Manitoba is no worse than Alberta, no worse than B.C., no worse than Ontario.
Mr. Chairperson, a part of the Confederation and the concept of being a confederation is that at times there is a need for us to assist some of those regions. You listen to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and you draw the conclusion that he would like to see Newfoundland close up, have all the people from Newfoundland leave the province if it is not economically viable. I would suggest to you that there are other things that have to be factored in before you start closing down a province because it is not deemed that that province has the ability to develop.
But if you listen to what the Premier is talking about, one has to start questioning whether or not he is really looking at the long-term picture for the province of Manitoba. When you talk about the transfer payments--and I look to the Premier because he is, in fact, the senior Premier in Canada, and he should at least be playing a significant role in the eventual development of any potential Constitution that is out there. This Premier should be talking about what is in the best interest not only of the province of Manitoba, but Saskatchewan, of our Atlantic provinces, provinces in which we have something in common, and that is our size.
That is the reason why it is important that we have the cash transfers. The amount of the cash transfers is important but not as important as having cash transfers. If you get rid of the cash transfers, if the federal government through Charest, who supports the cash transfers completely over, from what I understand, get rid of the cash transfers, have tax points--and so does Preston Manning, so does the Province of Alberta, from what I understand, and other possible jurisdictions. There is no wonder why. They benefit by that. Manitoba in the long term does not benefit. The Atlantic region does not benefit. I would even suggest to you the long-term best interests of Quebec does not benefit by seeing cash transfers shuffled over to tax points.
I can recall reading an article, Mr. Chairperson, where the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was quoted as saying something to the effect that Ottawa does not contribute nowhere near as much as it does to health care. So as it gets out of health care, it should have lesser and lesser say in how health care is being administered. There is some merit to what the Premier is saying. The minister in the second bench says, yes, right on. Well, let me tell you something. If you believe in a national health care program, the only way you are going to be able to enforce any sort of national standards is there has to be a cash transfer. If there is no cash transfer, you are not going to be able to see a future Canada health act being enforced, because the Premier was right, if the feds do not give money, they are not going to listen to what the feds say when it comes to health care delivery.
So what role does this Premier (Mr. Filmon) have on this whole issue, given his time and service to Manitobans? I like to think that I can speak out just as strongly for Manitoba as the next person, but I also believe that at times we need to ensure that we look at the broader picture. I am Canadian first and foremost. I have lived in other provinces. I take great pride in what is happening in Quebec, in other areas. I like to think that the Premier of the province does also, but he is not going to sell short what is important to Manitoba, as I would not do.
But I recognize that the Premier has an obligation as the Premier of the Province of Manitoba to protect certain elements of our Confederation. One of those is the cash transfers. I would love to see that cash transfer to the Province of Manitoba to be a billion dollars a year. I would love to see that. Reality of the situation? It is not there today. Will it be there tomorrow? I sure would like to see that, but that will not happen if, in fact, we evolve toward tax point transfers as opposed to cash transfers.
If it is a hundred million dollars or if it is a billion dollars, I believe in the importance of the cash transfers. I think it is in Manitoba's best interest that that cash transfer is going to be there in the future, Mr. Chairperson. Not only will the province of Manitoba benefit, but so will other jurisdictions. Those are the jurisdictions in which the Premier should be opening up some sort of dialogue with those smaller provinces, finding out who those allies are today. Do not wait for a constitutional discussion round in which you are in a room for a couple days and then you come up and you say, well, look, the provinces now are going to get the tax point transfers and the provinces are going to be happy for it. I do not like the political forces and the people who are getting in bed with each other in order to try to potentially come up with a constitutional resolution. I do not like it when you have the Reform Party and you have other individuals, somewhat powerful individuals, who are advocating getting rid of the cash transfers.
I recognize the importance of it. I believe that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) should be very clearly on the record in favour of cash transfers. If he is not in favour of cash transfers, I believe then that this is an issue that has to be brought to the electorate in the next provincial election. I believe that firmly in it, Mr. Chairperson, because in the long term, Manitoba will pay and will pay dearly if, in fact, we do not ensure that any government, whether it is this one, whether it is New Democrat or, hopefully, Liberal, in the future will advocate strongly for the cash transfers.
Part of the cash transfers, and the Premier made reference to it, was the equalization payments. Well, Mr. Chairperson, the equalization payments is an excellent concept, a concept that is enshrined today. There was dialogue with respect to it on the Meech Lake issue and questioning it. [interjection] It was questioned in Meech Lake, and then in Charlottetown it was being taken out.
An Honourable Member: Strengthened. It was the strongest position that has ever been taken on it.
Mr. Lamoureux: In the Charlottetown. Well, maybe I could have it mixed up with respect to the Meech Lake discussions, because they occurred. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) says that it was strengthened to be stronger than it ever was. That is something in which I would applaud the Premier on then. That is something in which, again, we cannot afford to lose, because there is a cost to living in Canada.
Maybe it is that $300 million net that the Premier refers to, and that allows us to have a military force. It allows us to have a foreign affairs office or embassies throughout the world which allow us the opportunity to set up things such as the Canada trade teams, which allow us to increase exports and bring in additional imports in many cases. There is a cost to running the House of Commons itself and feeding that particular bureaucracy.
* (1650)
Is Manitoba paying its fair share? Somewhat debatable. Are we being unduly penalized? No more than B.C. or an Alberta, I would argue, no more than an Ontario. Atlantic region? Well, at this point in time, this juncture in time, the Atlantic region is in need of serious assistance. So are we in certain areas. I would like to see more money from Ottawa coming towards social programming, programs such as literacy, more aboriginal programming. Those things are critical, but, having said that, we derive benefits of the Confederation. Today we derive the equalization, a good-sized payment, because we are a part of the Confederation, as we should, I would ultimately argue, because some provinces do not have the abilities to compete with other provinces that have the much larger treasury boards.
If you did not have a strong central government that has the ability to be able to shuffle dollars around, if you like, what you would have would be a Confederation where you would have one province with the ability to provide far superior social programming than other jurisdictions. I do not believe for a moment, and I do not believe this Premier should articulate that that should in fact be the case.
Mr Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
So I bring it up because it is an important issue, important enough that if in fact the Premier of the province, the government's policy, is to shy away from those cash transfers, then I want to do what I can to ensure that it is in fact an election issue, because I know that it is only a question of time before there is going to be another constitutional discussion, round table, who knows what actual format it is going to take.
My greatest fear is that we always seem to see, in any sort of constitutional dialogue, what Ottawa should be offloading to the provinces, what the provinces should be given. I always thought the way in which Meech Lake came into being was that you had the Prime Minister at the time sit down at a table and say: okay, what do you want, and gave every province what in essence it wanted, and because of that, Mr. Chairperson, it almost passed.
What happened of course was that the more people found out that this is going to cripple any sort of a strong national government into the future of providing certain programs, you found that there was a lot of public resentment towards it. Well, I think that we need to establish what is Manitoba's bottom line. What are we prepared to see happen as provincial legislators in any sort of a constitutional discussion? Once you have established the bottom line, then if you want to add to it you can add to it and so forth, because there has always got to be some give and take, but there have got to be some basics which this government will not accept whatsoever, and it needs to go further than that in the sense that in those areas in which it has established that bottom line, it has a responsibility to seek out other potential provinces and, to a certain degree, even Ottawa in getting support for that base. That is, in fact, what I would expect.
I really think that the government, one of the benefits--many Manitobans would argue that the government, by being in power as long as it has, has gone somewhat stale and has made a mess in certain areas. We can attest to areas like health care and so forth, where we have seen some disasters. One of the things which the Premier (Mr. Filmon) should be taking advantage of is his personal longevity, ensuring that he has some seniority amongst some of those premiers. Supposedly he has maybe garnered some savoir, if I am pronouncing the word properly, or has some ability in the whole issue of being somewhat of a statesman.
I would appeal to the Premier as somewhat of a statesman on the national scene in using that and ensuring that Manitoba's best interests are, in fact, going to be served. The best way he can do that for me right now personally, Mr. Chairperson, is by saying very clearly that this government will not accept or sign off anything that would take away from the idea of cash transfers toward the province, and I would include in that the equalization payment. Those are two fundamental things that I think are absolutely critical, and I would ask the Premier to make that commitment.
Mr. Filmon: Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly would not ever support reduction of cash transfers at the expense of Manitoba. That is the whole point. I mean, I am all in favour of greater cash transfers from Ottawa. The problem is that Ottawa's performance consistently over many, many administrations has been to reduce its cash transfers. So if he can show me a way of ensuring that we are not going to get continued reductions from Ottawa, then I would welcome his suggestions, if he could bring me a paper assuring that Ottawa will never reduce its cash transfers to the provinces.
The irony of it all is that the proportionate value of the transfers from Ottawa to Manitoba is such that since the tax points were instituted, they have gone up proportionately in value and proportion of transfer, and the cash part has gone down as a proportion of--
An Honourable Member: Pierre Trudeau promised he would never let those cash payments fall, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, l977-78.
Mr. Filmon: The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) makes the point. He says Pierre Elliott Trudeau promised he would never let those cash transfers reduce, and that is what we are faced with, Mr. Chair.
I just want to assure the member opposite, getting back--and I hope this finishes the discussion about transfers from the EI account and from gasoline tax, because they are spending $200 million and $300 million on roads and bridges in Atlantic Canada and zero in Manitoba.
Those transfers are being done by virtue of political fiat. Those are not being done on the basis of ability to pay. We have things such as income taxes, sales taxes, ad valorem taxes that try and reflect people's abilities to pay. These are straight patronage and political decisions that are made with respect to those, and if he has a lot more confidence in that kind of redistributed effort than in just simply letting the system and the market try and respond to those on a better basis, I do not have the same confidence as he does.
I do not want to see Newfoundland reduce its size and importance. I argue that in future, Newfoundland has things on the horizon, whether it be Voisey Bay, whether it be offshore oil and other things that are going to see it, and all you have to do is look at long-term projections. Newfoundland is going to do fine.
The difficulty with it is: why would you advocate that you pay thousands and thousands of individuals to remain unemployed for maybe two and three and five years until those jobs come around? The economies that have done best in the world are those that have the greatest labour mobility so that people move to where the jobs are, just as at times, when Manitoba has done poorly, Manitobans have moved away to get jobs. All you have to do is go into the plant at Louisiana-Pacific and talk to the workers there and find out how many of them came back to Manitoba, to Swan River Valley, which was their original home, because there were jobs there now that were not there two and three and five and 10 years ago. Literally dozens and dozens of them.
The same thing is true with respect to new developments like Isobord and so on. People should have the ability to move and the encouragement and the incentive to move to where the jobs are and not just stay on passive unemployment and encourage them to not work and expect to get a living. That is not the way that this should work, and if he wants to encourage that, I say he is wrong, and I say he is doing a disservice to Atlantic Canada by encouraging it because people can go away, take jobs, get experience and then when Voisey Bay and offshore oil and all those things produce jobs, they can come back with experience under their belts and better qualifications to be able to work in their native home province if that is their choice. That is what I want to see is strong provinces.
* (1700)
The same thing is going to happen with Nova Scotia, with Sable Island gas and other opportunities that they are developing. If their workers, their people have to go away for a period of time when unemployment is high and opportunities are low, so be it. Then they come back with experience under their belt to get the new opportunities. That is the way it should be. Everybody benefits by that.
So I just say to him that I appreciate what he is saying, that I will certainly be glad to try and live up to his expectations if we get involved in future constitutional discussions. I will certainly try and play the role that he wants me to play in these deliberations and discussions and to the best of my ability to use my experience in those endeavours, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lamoureux: The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) brought up a good point when the Premier was responding, and he said, well, I remember Trudeau. Trudeau made a promise. He said that he would never get rid of the cash transfers. Well, what happened with the cash transfers is that you had a group of Premiers and the Prime Minister get together. They sat down and of course the provinces in good keeping said well we want to be able to have more say. We want to have the tax point transferred. That is something in fact the provinces wanted to have. As a result of that--and this really makes the point that I am trying to get to the Premier--and that is, look, if you get the Premier sitting around the table and all of a sudden someone says well look, we want more tax points as opposed to the cash transfers. On the surface you say, well yeah, look, we are going to get more money out of this. Why not? Why would we not opt for that, Mr. Chairperson?
Well, the problem with opting for that is that at the end of the day Ottawa will not have any cash transfer payments going over to the provinces, and as a result of that they are not going to be able to have any sort of say on what is happening in health care across the country because the provinces can quite just ignore it. Today they can withhold cash as a result.
So, when we look at it, we say that the Ottawa--Ottawa in itself did not want to move per se. That was something that was negotiated a number of years ago in favour of the tax points. I remember when I was first elected, people were standing in their chairs and we were criticizing Brian Mulroney and we were saying that look, by the year 2010, because of that agreement that was signed I think it was in the late '70s, Ottawa was not going to be giving one nickel towards cash transfers towards health care. That was the projection. Then we had a new government that came in, and one of the first things that they did is they established a floor for the cash transfers.
At the end of my last question, it was very, very concise and very specific and that was dealing with trying to get an idea of whether or not this Premier recognizes the importance of cash transfers, and he does not. He does not recognize the importance. I do not know if he is just trying to play with words here in trying not to take a particular position. That is what my gut feeling is is that he understands what I am saying, but he is choosing not to take a position on the issue. I do not think that is appropriate. Given the importance of this issue, he should be addressing it head on. What does he have to lose? Why cannot he give an honest opinion as to what this government believes is important for the future of Manitobans on cash transfers versus tax points?
Just before I go to the specific question, I wanted to address another point because he has brought it up again, Mr. Chairperson, and that is when he talks about employment. He brings up Newfoundland and the subsidy. One of the first things that came to my mind, when he was talking about that, was the Crow rate. Well, the Crow rate was there to assist Prairie farmers, and members of his cabinet, at least one that I am aware of was quite supportive of the removal of the Crow rate. I believed that it was essential to get rid of the Crow rate primarily because I think the Crow rate was put into place to allow Manitoba to continue on as a hinterland, that if Ottawa had just gotten rid of the Crow rate and had no subsidy or no assistance, nothing to replace it, and they said, well, look, we are just going to get rid of it and let natural economic forces deal with it, this government would have been hollering and screaming from their seats.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Today, Mr. Chairperson, they question the amount of money that was given in replacing the Crow rate. And that is another issue in itself, the actual dollar amount, but at least Ottawa acknowledged, as they should have, because I too would have been jumping from my seat, and I would suggest it would have been nice to have seen even more money but there was a lump sum of money that was brought forward to assist in that rural economic diversification.
So this is one area, Mr .Chairperson. So I do not necessarily buy into what the Premier is saying, that we should abandon Newfoundland or other Atlantic provinces as quickly as he might be prepared to write them off. I think that what we need to do is to get a good assessment of the situation, and I hope there is some trust that is there. I even had a little bit of trust for the former government headed by Brian Mulroney, and it is probably a rare thing in terms of as a Manitoban. You like to think that there is some integrity in any given government.
Sometimes, I am not naive, I do believe that there is a certain amount of patronage that occurs, and I think that Winnipeg or Manitoba has been the benefit of some of it, and other provinces have been the benefit of some of it. All in all, how has Manitoba held out? Well, Mr. Chairperson, I think that there are some in Ottawa, whether it is individuals like Lloyd Axworthy or others, who have been there to protect Manitoba's interest. Does that mean that we have gotten everything that we wanted? Not necessarily. Could we have gotten more? That is quite possible, but all in all I think that we have done reasonably well.
Mr. Chairperson, the question which the Premier evades and maybe I can word it in such a way that the Premier can actually give me a direct response to it, and that is: imagine, if you will, the Premier sitting at a table where you have other Premiers and the Prime Minister, and the suggestion is that, look, today Manitoba receives X amount of dollars in cash transfers. We will replace that cash transfer and give an additional hundred million dollars, but that money will be coming through a direct tax point transfer. How would the Premier respond to that question, if posed?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that when the member opposite was saying we should not be critical of Ottawa for the amount of money that they put into the Crow rate offset, that the Liberal government put in $1.5 billion, and when the Conservative government was in office, Charlie Mayer was offering $5 billion. That is three times the amount and that was criticized by the Liberals, like the member for Inkster, criticized in their ignorance because they obviously did not know when they were having a very much more reasonable offer being made.
Those are the kinds of things that we always get from the Liberals who are defending their country cousins in Ottawa, the fact that they would like us to accept a third of what was being given by the Brian Mulroney government, as much as they criticize it. So those are the kinds of things that, I think, reduce the credibility of the member for Inkster.
With respect to his hypothetical situation, all I will tell him is that I will evaluate the offers given and I will always pick the offers that are best for Manitoba.
* (1710)
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I would suggest to the Premier that if an offer of that nature came to the province of Manitoba, it would be a very big mistake if the Premier agreed to take that particular offer. I think, as I had indicated, that the Premier does in fact understand the question, and the question is: with respect to tax points versus cash transfers, and given the response that the Premier has given, am I now to believe that the government's official position is that they do in fact favour tax points over cash transfers, if the price is right?
Mr. Filmon: No, we have not taken that position.
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, maybe then the Premier can indicate what the government's position actually is.
Mr. Filmon: Yes, I just gave it about 30 seconds ago. We will take whatever is the best offer in the interests of Manitobans.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, the Premier is being somewhat coy. He says that we are going to take what is in the best interests of Manitoba, so if, in fact, you have that scenario where you have everyone sitting around the table, is the Premier now saying that if they are going to compensate the province of Manitoba, the total amount of cash transfers plus some additional dollars in tax points, but all in tax points, he is prepared to abandon the concept of cash transfers for health care. That is what the Premier is saying. Is that the best offer? Or is he going to say what I believe is absolutely critical that he would not accept the federal government not having cash transfers for things like health care.
Mr. Filmon: No, I am saying that I will always evaluate proposals and accept what I believe is in the best interests of the people of Manitoba and I have no fixed and firm position. I will always advocate for greater transfers from Ottawa on a cash basis. My problem is that history has proven that Ottawa continually reduces its cash transfers to the provinces. That is harmful to us obviously.
Mr. Lamoureux: If Ottawa reduces cash transfers but at the same time increases tax points in replacement of that cash transfer, is that a good thing, especially if it exceeds the amount of the cash transfer?
Mr. Filmon: That is a hypothetical question and the problem is that I have attempted to discuss this intelligently with the member opposite in the past. Nothing can be discussed in isolation unless you include equalization, so that you make sure the province is always protected for these transfers by the equalization side of the equation, and I would not do a deal that is not in the best interests of Manitoba in the long term.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I would have thought that the equalization payment would have been a given, especially when in one of the responses that the Premier gave to my first question he talked about that the equalization payment was given additional strength in the Charlottetown Accord. So I would have taken that as a given.
I am somewhat disappointed in the sense that I do believe that the government is not being clear with Manitobans on an issue that is absolutely critical. I guess for a lot of people, they might not necessarily see right upfront the benefits of seeing a Constitution that clearly defines the importance of those cash transfers. I think that, in part, if the Premier--even though he does not want to say clearly here today--does, in fact, not believe that the cash transfers are that important that they have to be included in any future constitutional debate, not debate, but constitutional document, I think that Manitobans should know about that, primarily because I think that most Manitobans believe--I should not say that. Let me just pull a number that I have.
One of the things I do is constantly survey my constituents, and one of them that I ask every so often with respect to health care is the importance of who should be playing what roles in delivering health care. What I have found interesting is that we always have--I should not say always. Every so often I put the one question about who should be playing the leading role in certain areas, and I know that I have it here somewhere. I will just have to flip through these things.
Here is actually one that I asked of some Grade 11 high school students. It was, in your opinion, which level of government should play the leading role in the following. You will actually get the numbers. It was in health care--23 students said federal, 22 said provincial and 32 said both. Now that is just with youth, and it was a good exchange, a good positive exchange with these youth.
I have asked, I believe it is the exact question of my constituents, and hopefully, I have it here. This one actually I asked back in '96, and the question was: In your opinion, which form of government should play the leading role in the following. When it came to health care, 50 percent said the feds, 37 percent said the province, 3 percent had no opinion, 8 percent said both, and 2 percent did not answer that particular question. Now this would have been several hundred--I do not have the actual number, but in '96, I believe--well, it would have been in excess of 600-700 homes that would have responded to it.
What I learned from that particular question, Mr. Chairperson, is that both levels of government have a responsibility here. I do not put these questions to try to be mischievous to the Premier. I do believe that Manitobans want both levels of government to participate. My concern is that we cannot let Ottawa in the future--no matter what its political stripe might be--get away from that responsibility.
I am not sure, but I believe the Premier actually has others, some of his children who live outside of the province of Manitoba. We often have members of the family who live outside, and we like to think that there are certain things that make us proud to be Canadian. One of those things is our health care system. The only way in which we can preserve any sort of a national integrity in the system from one coast to the other is by having a national government that has some vested interest. I would suggest to you that the best vested interest has got to be those cash transfers. So it is not a question of trying to play a game with the Premier. I think that what I am attempting to do here is to reflect what I believe is very important to all Manitobans, and that is to see a high sense of co-operation with health care, not only in the province of Manitoba, but in other places throughout Canada. The only way in which I can best deal with this issue, because health care is in fact the most important issue in my constituency--it is closely followed by education--the only thing in which I would put a caveat when I say the most important issue is that if I bring up the issue of crime, crime will quickly, everyone wants to deal with the issue of crime.
It is because of the importance of this issue that I raise it here today. It is because of the importance of the role that Manitoba has played in the whole development of our constitution. I know I amongst many other members of this Chamber took a great sense of pride in the Canada clause. We have played a role in constitutional development. I think that we can continue to play that role. I just think that we have to be comfortable in knowing what we just cannot at all costs bargain away. I would suggest to you that one of those things is the cash transfers. That is the reason why I bring it up in the fashion I have.
* (1720)
Mr. Filmon: I will try to be brief because I think there are others that want to participate, Mr. Chairman. Firstly, I have not nor will I reject cash transfers. Number 2, three of my children did at one time live away from the province. Now three of the four live in the province, and my three grandchildren. Number 3, it has always been our position that on areas in which we have total provincial jurisdiction, health care being one of them, education being another, but federal participation through their financial involvement, that it should be a shared responsibility that we should be working together co-operatively, collaboratively to provide the best possible health care and social services to our citizens. That is the whole thing that we are working on with respect to this new social policy reform initiative, to finally make sure that there is a co-operative, collaborative approach to this, because these are the programs that Canadians value most highly and depend upon most highly. So you will not see any time at which I advocate for provincial-only responsibility in any of those areas.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Premier a few questions about the emerging scandal involving the native party in the last election. The Premier will recall that the story evolved and developed in the last few days of the election campaign. I remember hearing about it just the day before, two days before the story appeared in the newspaper.
I would like to ask the Premier what he did, what steps did he take when he first heard when the story first came out? What actually did he do? Who did he speak to and what steps did he take to get to the bottom of this problem?
Mr. Filmon: It is interesting that the member for Elmwood is engaged in this discussion, because he has experience as the returning officer in Wolseley in an election, I think, that was controverted at one time. Well, it was challenged.
One of the famous stories was about how there was a ballot box that was supposed to have been sealed with the ballots in it, and when it was opened it had his lunch in it. So it was part of the investigation that this sealed box was somehow unsealed, and the returning officer stored his lunch in it. It was one of the famous stories of electoral history here. The member opposite was a part of it, Mr. Chairman.
I have responded to the questions that he asked in the past, and I have said to him now that the matter is being investigated by Elections Manitoba and the Chief Electoral Officer. I will place my complete faith and trust in their investigation, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): I have sat through three days of Question Period and most of the afternoon this afternoon in concurrence, and I have been nonplussed, I guess is as good a word as any to use, by the Premier's, First Minister's, comments in Question Period, comments outside the House in the corridors and most particularly this afternoon where there has been a little more opportunity for extensive questions and answers, far more than you get with Question Period, how the Premier (Mr. Filmon) keeps talking about how this whole sorry mess is going to be taken care of by Elections Manitoba, I assume under The Elections Act.
Well, I would like to ask the Premier how he feels that this whole sorry mess can be clarified, how we can, as he said, get to the bottom of all of this if he is not prepared to use a public inquiry format and continues to say he is going with Elections Manitoba, which under neither the current Elections Act nor the proposed Elections Act that is before the Legislature now for report stage coming up and third reading, under neither of those Elections Acts can the information that is gathered by Elections Manitoba be made public. How is that going to help us get to the bottom of it, when the only thing that can come out of the Elections Manitoba investigation is a letter, at maximum, saying we have found nothing wrong, which was the letter that Elections Manitoba sent after the 1995 investigation, or, yes, there is something that was wrong, but, unfortunately, under The Elections Act, either the current one or the one that is before the House, we have no authority to do anything about it.
How can the Premier say that he is prepared to get to the bottom of this, when the only vehicle he is prepared to use is a vehicle that in this situation cannot even get past the starting gate, never mind make it to the checkered flag?
Mr. Filmon: I want to tell the member opposite that I appreciate her using those sporting analogies, that I tend to do that myself from time to time. I am not sure if she is doing that to humour me or whether she, in fact--[interjection] It just happened, okay.
Mr. Chairman, the member opposite seems to have been eavesdropping on my scrums out there, so she may know that I did indicate that I am seeking legal advice from both the law officers of this Assembly and those of the Constitutional Law branch and others and am prepared to accept their advice with respect to the statute of limitations that is currently in the act. We may be prepared to bring forth amendments to cover her concerns.
Ms. Barrett: Why is the Premier--to use a phrase or a word that was coined by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) several weeks ago--pretzelizing over this issue when he has available to him Section 83(1) of The Evidence Act which allows for an independent commissioner to be appointed to investigate precisely the kinds of allegations that have been raised in this House over the last three days? He does not have to make amendments to The Elections Act. He does not have to bring in anything new in order to have a full public inquiry. All he has to do is, under Section 83(1) of The Evidence Act, call a public inquiry himself. Is the First Minister saying that he is contemplating bringing in amendments that would not only enable Elections Manitoba--I am assuming the areas of concern are the fact that the statute of limitations, if you will, has run out and that under the current Elections Act, Elections Manitoba does not have the authority to compel evidence, et cetera, which they do under Bill 2.
Are those the only areas the First Minister is looking at, or is he looking at the fact that under The Elections Act, Bill 2, it is very clear that Elections Manitoba may not make public any of the findings of its investigation? Is he prepared to put in changes that would make it public as well?
* (1730)
Mr. Filmon: I think, Mr. Chairman, that people are not concerned about making public. They are concerned with the integrity of the system, and particularly Elections Manitoba. Nobody was concerned when Elections Manitoba prosecuted the individual in Minnedosa. They believed that the system worked. They believed that the Chief Electoral Officer acted properly and they believed that the integrity of the system was evident in the outcome, so nobody was screaming for it to be made public. They, in fact, were wanting the assurance that the investigation had been properly carried out and that a proper outcome occurred, and that has been the case.
This goes back many, many years. I can remember that we changed some elements of The Elections Finances Act because technical violations resulted in prosecutions in the past because people had not overspent their total allotment but they had overspent the amount that was available for advertising, as a for instance, and things of this nature where they were not major violations but they were in fact proceeded, investigated and prosecuted. Those are the kinds of things that Elections Manitoba's integrity and independence has not been challenged by virtue of the mere fact that they have not been able to give details of the investigation to the public.
Ms. Barrett: The First Minister this afternoon, in answer to questions raised by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), said that he--he being the First Minister--will be happy to answer to Elections Manitoba and to the public. I would just like to ask the First Minister how, under an Elections Manitoba investigation, the results of which are not made public, they are, in fact, prohibited under the new act, how he intends to answer to the public if that investigation is not made public.
Mr. Filmon: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I will answer to the public by my response to Elections Manitoba's investigation: (a) I will comply totally with their investigation in any way that I can or am asked to, and (b) I will respond to their findings in an appropriate fashion, and that will assure the public that I am responsive to them.
Ms. Barrett: How can the Premier respond in an appropriate fashion if, as a result of the investigation--which we are not even sure is legal yet under either the current or the proposed legislation--how can he respond to--let us assume that Elections Manitoba undertakes an investigation and comes up with the fact that someone did something wrong that was a violation of The Elections Act. Under the legislation, nobody can prosecute because the time for prosecution has passed.
An Honourable Member: Section 94, Elections Finances Act.
Ms. Barrett: No, that is Elections Finances Act.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask honourable members wanting to put their words on the record to wait till they are recognized by the Chair and at such time you will have that opportunity.
The honourable member for Wellington, to pose her question.
Ms. Barrett: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) is now saying that access through the criminal justice system [interjection] Yes, Criminal Code. There is access through the Criminal Code if there was a finding that is indictable, but Elections Manitoba may find that it was something that would be indictable that would be a problem or illegal under The Elections Act which is not indictable under the Criminal Code. They are not contiguous. There are offences under The Elections Act that are not Criminal Code offences.
My question to the Premier comes back to the basic situation: why will you not do the simple thing which is under Section 83(1) of The Manitoba Evidence Act which states, and I quote: Appointment of commission. Where the Lieutenant Governor in Council (the cabinet, the Premier) deems it expedient to cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter within the jurisdiction of the Legislature and connected with or affecting (d) the election of a member to the Legislative Assembly or any alleged attempt to corrupt a candidate at any such election, or a member of the Legislative Assembly after his election, or the payment or contribution for campaign or other political purposes, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, if the inquiry is not otherwise regulated, (which, in this case, I am averring it would not be) appoint one or more commissioners to make the inquiry and to report thereon.
Now this is simple legislation which is already on the books which addresses the specific allegations that have been raised in this House and in the public. The Premier has said on record this afternoon that he wants to get to the bottom of this, that he wants to deal with the quasi-judicial thing, that he cares about process and integrity, that he will answer to the public, that he is prepared to do everything to facilitate getting to the bottom and answering these questions.
Why is the Premier unwilling to use Section 83(1) of The Manitoba Evidence Act, which gives him the authority immediately to do this without any pretzelizing, without any machinations, without any changes that may or not be positive in the long run for The Elections Act? Why does he not just answer and take advantage of 83(1)?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, because the simplest answer is not always the best answer, and we have the--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the committee again that if they want to put something on the record, I would rather they come through the Chair so that Hansard has the opportunity to record their statements. At this time the First Minister has the floor.
Mr. Filmon: I thought that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) gave a very reasoned and reasonable explanation as to why it should be in all of our interests to preserve the integrity and the independence of the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Manitoba, and why their interest in ensuring that matters within their competence and jurisdiction should be investigated within their competence and jurisdiction. I think I said earlier that we are seeking legal advice on this matter with respect to ways in which we can assure that happens.
Ms. Barrett: Let us go down the road a little bit and say that the legal authorities that Elections Manitoba and/or the government is looking at for advice now come up with a response that, sorry, cannot be done, you cannot make changes to--you cannot say that you can make the--you cannot give Elections Manitoba the authority to investigate something they have already investigated before, because it is too late or--I do not even know what legal avenues you could say. If you have been there, done that, you cannot revisit it. I do not know. The Premier does not know. Elections Manitoba announced the inquiry, the probe when they did not even know. They have admitted that they do not know whether they can do any of this stuff.
* (1740)
What happens if the legal authorities tell you and tell Elections Manitoba, no, you cannot do it? No, you cannot go back because the statute of limitations. You cannot change the statute of limitations retroactively. No, you cannot make it public, because you have already said in Bill 2 that you are not going to make it public. Whatever the areas that the Premier is looking at--and we are not sure what areas those are--the legal people tell you, you cannot do it. Then what are you going to do? Because if those legal authorities tell you, you cannot make the changes you want to make, then you are stuck with an Elections Act that does not have a public component to it and does not allow Elections Manitoba to prosecute or to do anything of a legal nature. You have tarnished Elections Manitoba by forcing them to go through all of this stuff when you have 83(1) of The Manitoba Evidence Act.
Mr. Filmon: Firstly, that is a totally hypothetical question, and I do not want to criticize the member opposite for it. She is entitled to do that. I want to tell her straight out that if she thinks that I am going to stand idly and let the members opposite smear my name and my government's reputation by the continued putting forward of allegations without a means of getting to the bottom of it, she has got another thought coming. She has got another thought coming.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. You know, I will keep the decorum in this Chamber today.
The honourable First Minister, to continue.
Mr. Filmon: All I can assure her is that we will find a means to get to the bottom of this, and we will do our best to do it within the context of maintaining the integrity and the independence of Elections Manitoba and the Chief Electoral Officer.
Ms. Barrett: I would like to ask the Premier how utilizing Section 83(1) of The Evidence Act does not protect the integrity and the independence of Elections Manitoba?
I can make an argument, I believe, that only by utilizing Section 83(1) of The Evidence Act do we guarantee the independence of Elections Manitoba, given the current status of the current Elections Act and even the status of The Elections Act that is before the Legislature in the form of Bill 2.
How can the Premier say that going to a public inquiry under Section 83(1) of The Evidence Act does anything but maintain the integrity of Elections Manitoba?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer and all I can say is that I operate on the best advice that is available to me. I think there is some excellent advice available to us through the law officers of this Legislature, and the law officers of the Crown, the Constitutional Law branch, and so on. There are some considerations in every solution that is selected, and I will say that the solution that she has put forward has been suggested as one of the things to be looked at, but it is not the only things that can or should be looked at, and we are going to make a determination hopefully very, very shortly with respect to the best route to follow.
Ms. Barrett: I would agree with the Premier that there are considerations to every potential solution as he said. I think that actually it leads me into a comment that--well, no, a question first. In his asking people for advice, people usually give advice based on the question that is asked of them. Did the Premier or his staff or whomever is doing this asking for advice ask the legal authorities about the utility of using Section 83(1) of The Evidence Act to get to the bottom of this situation? Did they ask them about what the positives were and the negatives were of the utilization of Section 83(1) of The Evidence Act or was Section 83(1) of The Evidence Act brought up in the questions in the advice seeking that the Premier and his staff have undertaken?
Mr. Filmon: The member is aware that I have within my caucus a number of lawyers, and certainly they are aware of that section and discussions have been held with respect to the potential of that section. My bottom line is to seek what is, on all counts, on balance, the best means of getting to the bottom of this investigation.
Ms. Barrett: Subsection (a) of Section 83(1) of The Evidence Act states, and I quote--again, that this is the Lieutenant Governor in Council can cause an inquiry to be made into any matter connected with or affecting, and then we get into subsection (a) "the good government of the province or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof;"
Does the Premier not see that Section (a) or Section (d), which I spoke of earlier, are perfectly legitimate, very carefully worded simple avenues that the government could take in order to ensure that all of the allegations that have been put on the record, and there are allegations that have been put on the record directly and indirectly by a number of parties either directly or indirectly affected by this situation, allegations that the First Minister himself has made impugning the good name of several members of the Legislature and indirectly impugning the good name of other members of the public?
Why will the Premier not utilize Section 83(1) of The Evidence Act in order to put in place right now, not 90 days from now when Bill 2 would come into effect or 90 days from whenever this session ends, which is at the very least September, why will he not put into place something that is specifically designed to do what the Premier says he wants to have done, which is to get to the bottom of this? I have an answer.
I think more and more people will come to this same conclusion that, yes, there are considerations in every solution, and the consideration that is first and foremost on the minds of this Premier and his government is the consideration that under Section 83(1) of The Evidence Act, the outcome will be made public and that there is a good chance that the outcome of any public inquiry under 83(1) of The Evidence Act would point directly to the Premier's Office, directly to the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba. This is something that under no circumstances will this Premier allow to have happen. That is the only logical conclusion of the three days of stonewalling and refusal to use the best avenue available to him that one can come up with and many people are saying that.
Would the Premier not agree with that analysis?
Mr. Filmon: No, Mr. Chairman, I reject that analysis categorically, and I would say to the member opposite that if anyone is guilty of any wrongdoing, then they will bear the consequences as a result of the fullest investigation that we can bring to bear.
Ms. Barrett: At this point in time, Mr. Chair, the Premier is not prepared to undertake the fullest investigation available to him. The fullest investigation available to him is Section 83(1) of The Evidence Act which is available to him now and has been available to him since he was Premier. He is not choosing to take advantage of that which would guarantee that all information would be made public, that we would know, we as a public, not just the Legislature's going to LAMC, but we as members of the public would know what had happened, who had said what, who was telling the truth, who was not telling the truth, what actually happened, when did people know about what actually happened, is there fire with this smoke? We would then know that as a result of an inquiry under 83(1).
* (1750)
There is no guarantee--and the Premier will admit this--that under whatever amendments he is looking to make to The Elections Act, this will happen. As a matter of fact, we, on this side of the House--having talked to lawyers ourselves--do not understand and cannot quite figure out how The Elections Act could be manipulated--and I use that word advisedly--to forward the end result that the Premier wants, which is not getting to the bottom of the situation, not finding out who knew what, when and where and who did what, when and where, for or on behalf of whom. That is not what the Premier wants.
The Premier wants this unfortunate situation to go away, and the way he makes it go away is by manipulating and pretzelizing and making a mockery of the judicial process and the legislative process in this province by not taking advantage of the specific tool that he has at his hand to do everything he says he wants to do. But, no, he is trying to say, yes, we are going to get to the bottom of this, but the reality of it is he is trying to save his government. He is trying to save his good reputation, and that is all he is trying to do. He is trying to save people in his party, because if he had a full inquiry, the chances are that there would be serious damage done to the integrity of the Premier, to the integrity of his government, to the integrity of his party.
Mr. Chair, that damage has already been done. Does the Premier not understand that by stonewalling and obfuscating and refusing to use the tools at his hand, people are beginning to say: wait a minute, why is he doing this? The only logical conclusion to his behaviour over the last three days is that he has something to hide, and the only way the Premier can put the lie to that statement is by using Section 83(1) of The Evidence Act, calling in a public inquiry immediately. The reason he will not do it is that he is afraid of what will come out of that public inquiry.
So I would like to ask the Premier one more time to do the honourable thing. He has been Premier for longer than any standing Premier right now, longer than Duff Roblin. Is this any way to end your tenure as Premier of the Province of Manitoba? I think that is what is going on, Mr. Premier. I think you are sitting here thinking, uh-oh, I am in trouble now. We have really done it now. How am I going to get out of this? Well, I am going to get out of this by trying to be seen to be doing the right thing, to having it all come out, but the reality is that there is no way I can have it come out.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the member when she is in full swing. When the members are ready, we can get back to it.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, I will actually end by asking a question. Earlier this afternoon the Premier stated in response to a question from the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) that he wanted to make sure that we would get to the bottom of this, that he would be answerable to the public, that the public has a right to know. He has stated that all the way through. We have proven, I believe, that The Elections Act cannot allow that to happen and that we do not think there are any legal machinations that can take place to enable that to happen.
So will the Premier now not do the logical conclusion of what he has stated, which is to bring this matter to a full public acknowledgement, to the most independent, in-depth review possible, and use Section 83(1) of The Evidence Act?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, first I want to reject totally the lengthy, rambling series of allegations that the member opposite made. I do not think they do her any particular credit. I say this, that if indeed, as she says, the mere allegations have already irreparably harmed our government then she ought to be happy with that. She ought to take great glee and delight in that and she should be happy then that we are doing as we are.
I would say that we are in the process of receiving legal advice and that we will proceed based on the best legal advice to ensure that we can have this matter investigated by the proper authority in the manner that is best suited for preserving the integrity and the independence of our electoral system and Elections Manitoba.
Ms. Barrett: I take deep, personal exception to the Premier's comments that I ought to be happy that things are working out this way and I ought to be happy if it turns out that there has been some malfeasance in this situation. I am a partisan. The Premier knows that. There is no more partisan person in this House, with the possible exception of the Premier himself. That is a legitimate thing to be in this Legislature. That is a role we must have, both as government and as opposition. It is my duty, as it is his, to be a partisan in this Legislature, one of my duties, one of his duties. But it is also my duty, my larger duty as a member of the government, which all 57 of us are. We are supposed to be protectors of, and stewards of, the public weal. For him to say publicly that I ought to be happy that this is happening, and potentially some damage could be done to the Premier and the government and his party, puts my integrity totally at risk. In other words, he is saying to me that if something happens to the government on a partisan--that I am nothing more than a partisan.
I am not happy that this is happening. This is not something any of us should want to have happened as members of a Legislature. This is not what we should be doing in this Chamber today. We should be debating legislation. We should be debating policies. We should be talking about what the government has and has not done in its role as government. No one wants to have to spend time dealing with these allegations, but it is essential that we do it because it calls into question the integrity not only of the Premier, not only of his government, but it calls into question the integrity of us as legislators, and Lord knows we have enough problem with that as it is.
The Premier knows just as well as I do the numbers of people who put all of us in the same trash bin of integrity, and it is because in Manitoba, in all provinces, in the federal government, we have example after example after example--small in number, but large in influence--of people who were not stewards of the public weal. What we want to ensure in this House, and what the Premier should want to ensure in this House, is that the integrity of this system is protected. That is what he says he wants to do, but his actions belie that statement. His actions say: I am a partisan first, last, and always. His actions say I am not ready to use a very important docked piece of legislation, Section 83(1) of The Evidence Act, which reflects precisely the kind of situation we find ourselves in here, which has the potential, as Bryan Schwartz said yesterday, to be the worst political and ethical scandal in the history of Canada.
Nobody should be happy that that is a possibility, but by goodness, we have to ensure that we are not all tarnished with whatever brush there is, and that the people who are responsible, if there is accuracy, if there is any substance to these allegations, the people who are responsible for that happening must be brought to the court, if not the court in the judicial system, the court of public knowledge. Only through a public independent inquiry can that happen, and I want to end by saying I hope the Premier apologizes for stating that I ought to be happy that we are in this dreadful situation.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour now being 6 p.m., committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): The hour being 6 p.m., this House now stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Thursday). Thank you, and good night.