LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS

Wednesday,

 June 4, 2008

TIME – 6 p.m.

LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba

CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows)

VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley)

ATTENDANCE – 11    QUORUM – 6

Members of the Committee present:

      Hon. Mses. Allan, Melnick, Oswald, Hon. Mr. Selinger

      Messrs. Altemeyer, Borotsik, Cullen, Hawranik, Maguire, Martindale, Saran

APPEARING:

      Mr. David Faurschou, MLA for Portage la Prairie

      Mr. Hugh McFadyen, MLA for Fort Whyte

      Mr. Blaine Pedersen, MLA for Carman

      Mrs. Mavis Taillieu, MLA for Morris

      Mr. Peter Dyck, MLA for Pembina

      Mrs. Myrna Driedger, MLA for Charleswood

      Mr. Ron Schuler, MLA for Springfield

      Mr. Kelvin Goertzen, MLA for Steinbach

      Mr. Leonard Derkach, MLA for Russell

      Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, MLA for Inkster

WITNESSES:

      Bill 29–The Business Practices Amendment Act (Disclosing Motor Vehicle Information)

      Mr. Rick Negrych, Private Citizen

      Bill 38–The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Act

      Mr. Gordie Dehnn, Private Citizen

      Ms. Valerie Chatain-White, Private Citizen

      Mr. Greg McIvor, Private Citizen

      Mr. Wayne Benson, Private Citizen

      Mr. David G. Newman, Private Citizen

      Mr. John Feldsted, Private Citizen

MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:

      Bill 6–The Securities Amendment Act

      Bill 25–The Embalmers and Funeral Directors Amendment Act

      Bill 29–The Business Practices Amendment Act (Disclosing Motor Vehicle Information)

      Bill 38–The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Act

* * *

Mr. Chairperson: Good evening, will the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs please come to order.

      The first item of business is election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Nominations? Nominations?

Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Labour and Immigration): I nominate the MLA for Wolseley (Mr. Altemeyer).

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Allan.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon West): I nominate the Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Cullen).

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further nominations?

      We've had two nominations: the Member for Wolseley and the Member for Turtle Mountain. Then I guess we'll need to have an election.

      All those in favour of Mr. Altemeyer, please indicate by raising their hand.

Clerk Assistant (Ms. Tamara Pomanski): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Mr. Chairperson: Opposed, please raise your hand. Thank you.

Now we will vote on Mr. Cullen. All those in favour of Mr. Cullen, please indicate–only those people who are members of the committee.

Clerk Assistant (Ms. Pomanski): 1, 2, 3. We're missing Mr. Maguire.

Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, please indicate by raising your hand. All those opposed, please raise your hand.

      Thank you.

Clerk Assistant (Ms. Pomanski): Mr. Altemeyer, 5.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Altemeyer is declared elected Vice-Chair.

      This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 6, The Securities Amendment Act; Bill 25, The Embalmers and Funeral Directors Amendment Act; Bill 29, The Business Practices Amendment Act (Disclosing Motor Vehicle Information); Bill 38, The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Act.

      For the information of the committee, additional meetings have been called. They are as follows: Thursday, June 5, at 6 p.m.; Friday, June 6, from 10 a.m. to midnight; Saturday, June 7, from 10 a.m. to midnight; Monday, June 9, from 10 a.m. until noon, and again at 6 p.m.; Tuesday, June 10 at 6 p.m.

Bill 29–The Business Practices Amendment Act

(Disclosing Motor Vehicle Information)

Mr. Chairperson: As was previously agreed to this morning, we'll set aside Mr. Borotsik's motion to hear Mr. Negrych's presentation.

      I now call on Mr. Negrych to make his presentation, Bill 29, The Business Practices Amendment Act.

      Please proceed.

 Mr. Rick Negrych (Private Citizen): I'd like to thank the committee for allowing me to speak here.

      I have some idea, basically, of what I speak on this as I spent some 36 years in mechanical trade here in Winnipeg and a couple of years in Alberta. When I look at this and they're saying that the dealers that are set up there, which are springing up in every corner of the block at this time and have been for the last few years, these are used-car dealers. They're saying that they have to disclose if there's anything wrong with the vehicle, mechanically or otherwise. I find this interesting in the fact that we have a law in place right now which is called the safeties which have to be in place.

      I was asked to speak here, and I find it very rude that some people think it's a big joke and don't really care to listen to what I have to say here. Perhaps I should just sit down if that's what has to happen here, or am I here to speak, with the intention that members around the table are here to listen to me. I mean, if you don't want to listen to me, show me by raising your hand, and I'll gladly sit down.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Negrych, I was one of the people that was smiling, and I will apologize to you. It had nothing to do with you. It had to do with something that happened before you came to the podium, but nonetheless, I apologize, and we will try to give you our undivided attention. Please proceed.

Mr. Negrych: Thank you very much. We have safeties in place now that every vehicle that's sold has to go through a safety before it can be registered. If it's not safetied, you can't register it, and in my experience over the last few years, one of the worst offenders is the Province of Manitoba. I worked at the highways department for some 23, 24 years, and we would do safeties on these vehicles, but if a buddy of the foreman or the shop supervisor needed work, we were too busy and these vehicles would go out. They would go out not to have a safety done on it. They'd go out to get a green sticker put on the window, on the windshield, because the green sticker was the criteria to register a vehicle.

      Then these vehicles would come back and the mechanics with a conscience, we wouldn't let them go on the road. We'd bring them back into the shop and do the work, in some cases, $2,000 and $3,000 worth. I'm not sure if the highways minister was aware of that, but as I go back a few years, and some of you may know him, Joe Borowski, he's the only one in my years with the highways that had a backbone to clean house when it was necessary. He dealt with some of these issues, but he's not around anymore so perhaps maybe the present highways minister would care to look into the situation because it's a serious one. These trucks are big vehicles. They are going down the highway at 100 kilometres an hour, in some cases are not safe and shouldn't be on the road because they are not properly safetied.

      However, to get back to the cars, we have safety shops in Winnipeg that are supposed to be doing safeties. We have dealers in Winnipeg that are selling these cars and putting them through safeties, but the safeties are not done properly, and in some cases at least, these vehicles are going on the road registered with safety factors in place, or not in place. I mean, if an engine isn't working properly, it's a hazard but you can get around it. If your brakes aren't working, you have a problem. If your steering isn't working, you have another problem.

* (18:10)

      There are also things on the inside of the vehicle that cannot be seen that are a safety factor. What is a lemon law going to do with this situation? They say, well, according to this information it's an unfair business practice under the act. What's going to be done? We know that cars have gone through safety shops. The safety wasn't properly done. They went back to the shop, and they got a slap on the finger, and they're back in business doing safeties, not safe safety. They're doing safeties just for the sake to put a sticker on the window.

      At the highway shop, there was a department there that also did random safeties. There was one situation there that I recall–there were many others–but one car, a 4x4, was bought from McDougall Auto when he was on Ellice, safetied, registered. The customer took it and figured, well, okay, I'll take it to the safety shop and get it checked out. It came to the safety shop for a random check and there was over $2,000- to $3,000- worth of work that needed to be done on the front end and the brakes. How is a dealer–with what kind of conscience does he sell a vehicle knowing that this kind of work needs to be done on it? He sells it for a premium price and the thing is a rolling time bomb on a highway. So what is the lemon law going to do? I mean, we have enough laws in place right now, if they were properly done, you wouldn't have cars on the highway that are a hazard.

      Let's go to the newer cars, and newer cars have computers in them. These computers are programmed in such a way that the cars in Canada are set up different than the cars in the States. Cars in Canada have to be set computer-wise for the colder temperatures and the conditions we have to drive in here. The cars in the States for warmer climates are set up different.

      So, if you get a car from California and it comes up to Canada, how is the computer set for our temperatures and our conditions? Is the lemon law going to protect the consumer from that? I mean, that's not what the lemon law is there for. However, that's not a mechanical problem. That's a computer problem, as the way it was set up for an environment that it was sold into.

      We have other vehicles that come across the line from the States. How many of these vehicles with a new computer system–they are set up in such a way that they track every problem that has ever gone wrong with it  and has been repaired. You can erase these computers, and the consumer will be no more the wiser of what the problem was with that vehicle. So it could have been a complete lemon, for all it's worth, for a whole lifetime from 2000 to 2006.

      We have cars coming in from Montreal, that the dealers there have–they're not supposed to; it's against the law. They're not supposed to tamper with the odometers. We got cars coming from Montreal that odometers have been tampered with–there are ways of doing it–and the consumer is no smarter for it. What is the lemon law going to do about that? When these people are caught–and some of them are–they need more than just a slap on the wrist. We have young offenders in Canada that get the same kind of treatment. Probably some of these 100-or-so class-four auto thieves that are out there know more about the cars than a lot of the consumers do. Even I don't know how to steal a car within 30 seconds, as they have.

      So what is the purpose of this lemon law? I don't know, other than more government bureaucracy. The honest dealers do the honest thing. They disclose what's wrong with the vehicle, and they sell to a customer. Perhaps the best protection a customer has is the fact that the salesperson or the dealer wants that customer to come back to him. Before Midway went down, that's where I bought my vehicles. When going there, the  salesman always told me that their customers have come back every year for the last, in some cases, 20, 30 years. So they only come back because they know that they got a good deal, they got good service and they have been protected by the dealership.

      That is the only thing, one of the only things that's going to keep the customer coming back, and that's one of the only things that's going to keep that dealership honest, is they want that repeat customer. The people on the corner, one of the first things they do on the sales lots, they sell you the car for whatever they can get out of it, and then they try to sell you insurance or warranty. That is a big seller on this corner lot is warranty because they know that most of those cars probably won't make it past the year, and then they have an angry customer on their hands. So, if they can sell them the warranty, then they'll tell them, well, you've got the warranty, then start checking out some of that warranty. It's not worth the paper it's written on.

      So there's a number of other things I could bring up in this situation, but my time is up. But I hope some of these things are taken into consideration.

      I guess there was some mention this morning of the VIN number. That is only as good as the customer or the dealer wants it to be. You can get around that as easily as you want to.

      So it's the dealer. The onus has to be put on the dealer, if he wants to have customers come back and give the customer the proper product.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Negrych.

Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Thank you very much for your presentation. Obviously, your lifetime experiences have enabled you to make a very valid assessment of this legislation. What would you say outright to the minister in regard to the legislation and what we, as a committee, should do with the legislation?

Mr. Negrych: This lemon law, it's not worth the paper it's written on unless the minister is willing to put some teeth in it and deal with the dealerships that sell these cars. If they can sell a car and they get a slap on the fingers, it'll be the same as our justice system: Who cares.

Mr. Faurschou: Well, thank you very much. I do appreciate your observation and a presenter, previously from the used-car dealership association, indicated that the province was not enforcing the existing legislation as it pertained to individuals that were not licensed car dealers selling a numerous number of vehicles through their own enterprise, and that law was not being enforced either. Now you've spoken also of the safety situation as well.

      So your observations have been validated by others, that current laws are not being enforced and to add just another law, what would be the purpose of it?

      Do you have anything further to add?

Mr. Negrych: There would be no purpose to it. My son bought a car from a used dealership here in Winnipeg. It was a used car, came out of Montreal. There were problems with it. When he took it for a test drive, the lights on the dash, there were no lights. He took it for a test drive. It's fine. Took it home. Within a day or two, the trouble lights came on the dash. Took it back. He says, no, we can't do anything for you. It worked when it was here. Your time is up. We can't do anything for you.

      So, what's more legislation going to do to stop that kind of–later, the salesman that worked for that fellow, that I knew, quit that place because he said that he was unethical, running a very corrupt business, and he couldn't work for a guy that did it.

      So what is more legislation going to do? Nothing. Enforce the laws we have and put some teeth in them.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon West): Mr. Negrych, thank you for a down-to-earth kind of presentation on this particular law. You are a mechanic, you have been for a long time, and you have a lot of experience that we can draw on.

      I'm very curious. At the end of your presentation, you said the VIN, the vehicle identification number, and you said, you can get around that very easily. How can you get around a vehicle identification number?

* (18:20)

Mr. Negrych: It was mentioned this morning. All you have to do is go and get another vehicle off a different–take the VIN number off, go get another vehicle, put that VIN number on that vehicle. It's not an honest way, but an honest person never deals with things like that. There's corruption–

Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Thank you very much for your presentation tonight. The VIN issue was brought up this morning as well and maybe just get a chance for you to elaborate on that. I hadn't given it too much thought until just the last couple of days. My oldest son had the family van out at the golf course, in fact, the local golf course. When they were headed home, packing up their golf clubs, realized that the licence plates had been stolen off the vehicle. In fact, there was another vehicle in that parking lot that had both licence plates removed from it. So, obviously, there are some situations, illegal in nature going on.

      Do we have existing legislation or teeth in legislation that will protect consumers, specifically in regard to the vehicle identification number or is there something else that we should be looking at to put some more teeth in legislation?

Mr. Negrych: Well, the vehicle information number, it's usually and most times right on the front, on the driver's side, where it's not that easy to get at, but if you have the proper tools, it's only riveted in there by two small rivets. If you have the right tool, you can grind those rivets off and you pull your identification number, and unless the customer really knows what he's doing, or the owner knows it, he'll never even know it's missing perhaps until he takes it to the garage to get some work done and the mechanic looks for a number, because you need a VIN number to punch into the computer to know what's to–but you can take that number out of there with a proper little tool and the customer would never even know it's missing.

      What can you do about it? Well, I guess the same thing as you can do about car thieves. What's being done with car thieves? Stealing a VIN number is almost the same thing as stealing a car, only I think stealing a car is more serious because then you're out there using it as a weapon. A VIN number, you take that little number and you change it with another vehicle and you're–

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Negrych. Our time has expired.

The next item of business is, how late does the committee wish to sit tonight?

An Honourable Member: Ten o'clock.

Mr. Chairperson: I've heard 10 o'clock. Are there any other suggestions? Ms. Allan?

Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Excuse me. I think we should sit till 10 o'clock, and I think we should assess it at that point and consider sitting longer.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Is it agreed that we sit till 10 o'clock and reassess at that time? [Agreed]

      We left off debating Mr. Borotsik's motion. Mr. Borotsik moved and recommended to the House that all meetings of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs be immediately suspended and only resumed when the Premier's (Mr. Doer) current summit in Mexico ends so he may be able to attend in person to hear public presentations on Bill 38, The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Act.

      Mr. Cullen had the floor when we adjourned. Mr. Cullen has eight minutes remaining.

Mr. Cullen: Well, Mr. Chair, it's certainly a pleasure to be back in committee tonight, Wednesday night. Looks like we're going to have some more eventful evenings in the future and lots of discussion on Bill 38, I'm sure. I just want to continue my comments on the resolution brought forward by the rookie from Brandon West and certainly want to speak in support of that.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson in the Chair

      Clearly, Bill 38 is a very substantial piece of legislation here in Manitoba, and certainly the Premier has an interest in bringing forward this legislation. It's just unfortunate that he elected this time to take his trip down to Mexico. We certainly felt that it might be an opportune time, kind of in the heat of the battle, if you will, when various pieces–we've got about 20 or 25 pieces of legislation that we're trying to get completed and go through the whole legislative process, and obviously the committee stage is a very important part of moving legislation forward in Manitoba.

      As we know, that's just the opportunity when Manitobans get a chance to come forward and talk to opposition members and government members and with ideas. Hopefully, the ideas they bring forward should, in effect, bring forward better pieces of legislation, because we do know, Mr. Vice-Chair, that we are going to have to live with this legislation, you know, probably for the next three years and maybe even longer than the next three years, so it's important that we get the legislation right the first time around.

      We do know and it's very important that Manitobans recognize that this particular bill, Bill 38, is a very substantial change in terms of where we've been at and where we want to go and where the government at least wants to go. In fact, we're in essence repealing balanced budget legislation that we've had in this province since back in the 1990s. I think most Manitobans have told us up until now through the committee stage that that was a fairly effective piece of legislation and had their best interest at heart. So, you know, obviously we think the Premier (Mr. Doer) should be here to listen to what Manitobans have to say on this very important piece of legislation.

      I made a reference last night to–just it's hard not to miss the paintings on the wall in this particular room. The one on my extreme right was the Premier for some time back in the late 1890s, a fellow by the name of Thomas Greenway. Certainly, it kind of hits home with me because Mr. Greenway, the Premier at the time, actually came from England and spent some time in Ontario and then later after that he actually moved to Manitoba. He actually set up shop in the area of Crystal City, Manitoba, in the south-central part of the province where he was involved in farming and, of course, some development as things would have it.

      He was a bit of a speculator back then, and he was certainly interested in developing Manitoba and developing rural Manitoba, so he certainly played an important role there. He was certainly active in the railway issue there and also in the school issue. Those were the kinds of hot topics at the time as the young Manitoba was being developed, so he played a very important role there.

Mr. Chairperson in the Chair

      He certainly was involved, interested in politics, and in 1883 he actually was elected to the Legislature and he became the Leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba in 1883. Actually the Liberals were successful in Manitoba back in 1888, and they formed the first Liberal government. Mr. Greenway, Thomas Greenway, was the leader and, as a result, was the Premier of the province at that time. He was successful. He was re-elected in 1892 and then 1896, later defeated in 1899, but he certainly kept his interest with politics and later on in 1904 he was actually elected to the federal government. He was elected there, and he was a member of the constituency called Lisgar. Even back then there was a Lisgar constituent.

      So Thomas Greenway certainly played an important role in the development of southern Manitoba, and I certainly wanted to acknowledge that. Today, Mr. Chairman, if you travel to Crystal City, the middle years school there, that's the 5 to 8 school, is actually named after Mr. Greenway. They have the current principal there, Bill Harding, would certainly be more than happy to give you a tour of his school, just a tremendous place to be.

      The other thing that I would certainly like to mention at this point in time, there is another elementary school in Crystal City and the principal at this point in time is Larry Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton has been in the Crystal City school for 27 years, and, in fact, Mr. Hamilton has been teaching a total of 39 years. Mr. Hamilton has a real interest in Manitoba politics. He has certainly visited the Legislature here on a number of occasions, and he brings his students in here to talk about politics, learn the process and, in fact, talk about the committee stage where Manitobans can come and speak to the various pieces of legislation.

* (18:30)

      I know Mr. Hamilton likes to take the opportunity to come and bring his students to the committee room where they can take a look at one of their previous and former residents, Thomas Greenway, so it's a very important part of the process and, certainly, I want to acknowledge Mr. Hamilton,  who, actually, after 39 years in the teaching business is going to be retiring this June. I know Mr. Hamilton will have many years because he has a real avid following in history and dealing with history. So he certainly knows about Mr. Greenway, the area of Crystal City, and in fact follows the politics quite closely. So I know he's quite interested in the process in terms of developing legislation and going through the committee stage and so forth. So I just wanted to take time to mention that.

      Clearly, we hope the Premier (Mr. Doer) will be back in the very near future. Unfortunately, he might be away for the weekend, and I know we've got committee set up to run through the weekend, but it's kind of unfortunate, and this is the whole intent of this particular motion, is to allow the Premier the opportunity to come back to Manitoba and we could continue and pick up where we left off tonight and have the Premier have the ability to listen to what Manitoban have to say.

      Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very important part of the democratic process in Manitoba and is relatively unique to other jurisdictions across the province. So, again, I guess it goes with–I just really want to reiterate that this is an important piece of the developing of legislation. We would certainly like to have the opportunity for the First Minister to be here.

      Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Cullen. I would remind members that we're debating a resolution–a motion–and if I could paraphrase, I think we should confine our remarks to the relevance of why we should immediately suspend the committee hearings and why we should only resume when the Premier can be here to hear presentations. So, if we could try for a little relevance, it would be appreciated.

      We have a speakers' list which at this point includes Mr. McFadyen, Mr. Faurschou, Mr. Pedersen, Mrs. Taillieu and Mr. Dyck. Mr. McFadyen, you have the floor.

Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I support the resolution brought forward and would say that I think things would be different if Premier Greenway was here, that he would have handled this situation differently from the current situation. He's not the sort of leader who would introduce sweeping changes to our rules of financial accountability and democratic processes and then flee the country for a trade mission. [interjection]

      Well, the Member for St. Boniface now wants to debate Mr. Greenway's legacy in Manitoba politics, and I'm not going to take the bait because I know, Mr. Chairman, that if I do you'll call me on the issue of relevance, and we wouldn't want that to happen. But I do want to say in support of the resolution that this is a sweeping piece of legislation.

      We believe that the Premier (Mr. Doer) has no mandate to have introduced it. He was elected in 1999 on a promise to keep the balanced budget law, and, in fact, we have a news release issued by the then-Leader of the Opposition in 1999 under the New Democratic Party, I guess it was the new New Democratic Party letterhead at the time, saying that if elected we will follow through on our five doable, achievable commitments to the people of Manitoba. They kept it down to five because they didn't want anybody to think that they were being unrealistic; they wanted them to be doable and achievable. So this is one of the five doable, achievable, bedrock commitments which provided the Premier with a mandate to govern that led to the turnover of power in late 1999 on the backs of a campaign that was in effect a social contract with the people of Manitoba, a commitment almost to the level of a binding legal commitment to the people of Manitoba that he would maintain in place the balanced budget legislation known as Bill 2, previously opposed by the Premier and many of his colleagues.

      Who can forget those debates back in 1995 when, in fact, the Leader of the Opposition of the time said, and I quote, "I know it is a cynical pre-election ploy."  And what a difference four years make, Mr. Chairman. Four years later the very same pre-election commitment being made by that very same Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer). In 1995, it's a cynical pre-election ploy. In 1999, it is the commitment that led to his election at that time.

      So it's clear that the social contract between the Member for Concordia and the people of Manitoba, which was sealed at that time, to hang on to the balanced budget legislation, appears now to be in danger of being breached by that very same Member for Concordia, now only some eight years after that commitment was made.

      For that reason, the motion makes a great deal of sense, that if the Member for Concordia is going to support Bill 38 and, in fact, be the driving force behind it or at least one of the driving forces behind it, then certainly he should be present, and in person, and be prepared to respond to the very many questions that are going to come from members of the public who may want to ask questions such as: Why did you promise in 1999 to keep balanced budget laws and only eight years later introduce a bill to repeal them?

      Those are the sorts of questions that people might want to ask if he was here. We don't know what the answer would be, and I think we're all impoverished as committee members not having the benefit of hearing those responses. I think that we would want to know what has transpired in that period between September of 1999 and today, June of 2008, that would lead to the Premier reneging on that core commitment that he made to the people of Manitoba in 1999, as I said almost to the level of a social-contract kind of commitment, that the people thought that they were getting one thing and quite clearly, today, are being told that they were, in effect, duped by the Member for Concordia into voting for him, knowing all along that there was a hidden agenda to gut the balanced budget law, the hidden agenda which has now been laid bare through Bill 38.

      It's only fair to the people of Manitoba that they have the opportunity to question the Premier (Mr. Doer) on this hidden agenda and the subsequent steps to repeal the balanced budget law, that he be held to account for this Bill 38, that he be present at committee to justify the extreme position that he's taking now, not necessarily saying that he intends to run debts and deficits but certainly taking a step to legalize deficits on the core budget of the Province of Manitoba.

      This is a very dramatic step away from the current legal regime here in Manitoba, one that calls on the Premier, we believe, certainly morally if not legally, to be present as the debates take place on this bill here in committee and at every other step through the process. That's why, Mr. Chairperson, this motion brought by the Member for Brandon West (Mr. Borotsik) is a reasonable motion. It is almost a motion that would be unconscionable to vote against for anybody who knows the history, understands that promise that was made, that sacred vow that was made by the Premier to the people of Manitoba in 1999.

      So I don't think that any member of this committee is going to want to endorse the breach of a binding obligation by voting against this motion. I think they will want to support the idea that if the Premier is bent and determined to repeal the balanced budget law, that he ought to be present to defend that decision, to respond to questions and participate in the debate.

      When we look at what the implications of this bill are for the people of Manitoba, especially the next generation, many of whom don't have the opportunity and are not in a position today because of their young age to come and present to committee, those are the people who will pay for Bill 38 in the end. At some stage in life, when they receive that tax bill or when the creditors come calling on the Province of Manitoba demanding repayment of their debt, and that generation, say, 20 years from now, says how is it that we got ourselves into this position, they should be able to go back and refer to Hansard from this committee and see the comments of the Premier of the day, the justification provided and ask themselves the question, do I accept this justification or do we want to look back on this period in history as a very dark chapter in the history of Manitoba, a chapter where a premier elected on a promise to keep balanced budgets reneged on that promise at the first opportunity and left us this legacy of debt.

* (18:40)

      So I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this is a good motion, that all members will want to support it. They will not want to have to look those young people in the eye 20 years from now, as they comb through Hansard and say to themselves, who was it who brought about this Bill 28 and how is it that we found ourselves in this situation? They won't want to say that we voted against a motion to suspend committee until the Premier (Mr. Doer) returned from his trip to Guanajuato, Mexico. They're not going to want to have to say that. They're going to want to be able say we supported the motion, we suspended committee until the Premier returned and that is why he is on the record in some vain attempt to justify Bill 38.

      So we know that important business exists beyond the borders of Manitoba. Trade is an important part of our economy. Certainly, tens of thousands of jobs in Manitoba, in fact, in the hundreds of thousands depend on trade with other nations, including Mexico. That's why we're so appreciative of the work done by those who came before us, including Premier Filmon and prime ministers in previous governments, who stood up and stood in favour of free trade with Mexico, who had the courage to face down opposition, enter into NAFTA and the foresight to know the benefits that would flow to all Manitobans, including our current Premier who, interestingly enough, and this is an interesting historical point, fought against NAFTA at the time that he was opposition leader, when he occupied the office that I, today, have the privilege of occupying. He was one of those vocal opponents in this province of NAFTA, and today to see him in Guanajuato, Mexico, singing the praises of NAFTA and free trade with Mexico, it is an unbelievable evolution. One might even say flip-flop, I think, might be the technical term for what he's done on the issue of free trade with Mexico.

      That, Mr. Chairperson, is not a good enough reason to miss committee. I might have a different view on this motion if he was in Saskatchewan trying to negotiate free trade. If he was holed up in the Hotel Saskatchewan in Regina, right now, I might not support this motion. I might be inclined to say he should be in Saskatchewan negotiating free trade with our neighbour to the west. He should be travelling through western Canada negotiating free trade. But because that's not where he is, but because he's in a place where we already have free trade promoting an agreement that already exists, and which he opposed, in Guanajuato, I believe, that this motion makes eminent sense and I'm very pleased to support it. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: The next speaker is Mr. Faurschou.

Mr. Faurschou: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the discussion on the motion moved by the honourable Member for Brandon West (Mr. Borotsik). I would like to congratulate him, once again, for bringing forward a motion that is, indeed, very important to the deliberations that we as committee members are placed with the responsibility to garner the public's participation and incorporate the wisdom that Manitobans wish to share with us.

      I concur wholeheartedly with the motion stating that we should stand down as a committee in recess awaiting the Premier's return because, indeed, as has been outlined by the previous presenters here this evening, the Premier has changed, perhaps he has not because he is not here to defend his position, being that he did indeed promote in the past elections the position that he was totally supportive of maintaining the balanced budget legislation. This Bill 38 sets aside that legislation and allows for the government to run a deficit as long as there are positive revenues available somewhere else within the summary budget. The committee recognizes that Bill 38 wants to provide Manitoba Hydro and other Crown corporations with the responsibility to balance off the government's operating deficit.

      The position of Bill 38 is contrary to the Premier's previously stated positions, so I think it is incumbent upon the members that sit around this committee to recess and allow the Premier (Mr. Doer) to be in attendance and, perhaps, explain to presenters why, in fact–or even committee members–why the change in position.

      I do understand that the Premier is away in Mexico, promoting free trade with that country. Again, that is a change in position from previously recorded positions of the Premier and Opposition Leader of the time. He made it well-known that free trade was not, in his assessment, in the best interests of Manitobans. Now a very, very short time later, he has, in fact, stated quite the contrary, that free trade is, indeed, in the best interests of Manitobans. That is the reason for his travels to Mexico.

      As I sit here this evening, I look around the room under the general gaze of nine former Premiers and  wonder whether any one of them would have left the province when such a substantive bill was being discussed by the Assembly. I think not, because all the premiers–their portraits hanging in the committee room here–took a genuine personal interest in the business of the Assembly and would not leave the business of the Assembly, because they all believed in leadership comes by example.

      If all of us around the committee table looked to the Premier as the leader and followed his example, would we have anybody sitting around the committee table? All of us would off promoting the benefits of dealing with Canada and Manitoba. We wouldn't have anyone sitting at the committee table in which to listen to presenters, if we followed the leadership of the First Minister and followed his example.

      That's how I was raised. If you wanted respect, if you wanted to be acknowledged as a leader, you showed leadership through your own actions, because you wanted people to follow you and reflect the actions that you were taking personally.

      This motion before us this evening, indeed, reflects what we, as the committee, should show respect for–the Premier. If he believes that this was an absolutely necessary trip to Mexico, we should acknowledge that necessity and stand down as a committee, allow the Premier time to promote Manitoba and, upon his return, come back into committee and again engage Manitobans with the Premier present, so that he can hear first-hand and show the leadership which he wants Manitobans to see in him and to reflect upon his actions and be present to hear Manitobans' concerns.

* (18:50)

      How can we know what the Premier is thinking, without having him present? What has happened over the course of committee in his absence, whether it's been currently in Mexico or last week when he was at the Western Premiers' Conference. He has left instructions, obviously, to his Cabinet ministers as well as all NDP caucus members that they are not to say anything because he is the spokesperson, and that is why we have not heard any questioning from any of the members of the government side of the House.

      We did hear a brief commentary from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) last week when–the terms that come to me are "baited" or "goaded" into saying a couple of words by one presenter. But, outside of that, there has been no initiative taken by any members on the government side of the House to query further any of the presenters that have come before committee.

      I do believe, wholeheartedly, because it has been unanimous over the course of this committee sitting, that the Premier has obviously left instructions for no one to say anything on his behalf and not to ask any questions. I would look to the Minister of Health (Ms. Oswald) this evening to ask questions of presenters and participate in open debate. I know there are no presenters at this point in time, but there will be throughout the evening and perhaps she will indeed engage presenters.

      We saw an example last night of the implementation of the Premier's order for no government members to participate in committee when the honourable Member for Radisson (Mr. Jha) raised his hand to be acknowledged by the Chairperson and to be immediately chastised by the Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade (Mr. Swan). The honourable Member for Radisson was not allowed to ask a question of a presenter, even though he visibly went about it to get the attention of the Chairperson.

      Now, for those reasons, I think all members at the committee table should, in fact, support this motion, and without speaking to this motion we obviously believe that all members from the government side of the House are in support of the motion because no mention was made to the contrary.

      So I'm feeling rather good that the honourable Member for Brandon has put forward this motion that currently all members of the committee are in support of. Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate.

Mr. Chairperson: The next speaker is Mr. Pedersen.

Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): I would certainly like to speak in favour of this resolution, that all meetings of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs be immediately suspended and only resumed when the Premier's (Mr. Doer) current summit in Mexico ends, so he may be able to attend in person and hear public presentation on Bill 38, The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Act.

      I think it's somewhat ironic that we're surrounded by many former premiers in this room and yet our current Premier is absent from the meetings, from the hearings. The former premiers around this room remind me of most of the government members sitting there when presenters do come, sitting there in silence, in rapt attention, staring off into space, but whatever.

      I can only hope that when the Premier is in Mexico this week, that he's out there promoting Manitoba pork because certainly the government at home here is not promoting Manitoba pork with Bill 17. I think they will probably hear that loud and clear now that they've finally called Bill 17 and start to listen to the farm families that come in to tell their story and how they feel they're being unfairly targeted by Bill 17.

      But I wouldn't expect the Premier to be sitting here listening to that either. He spent, I believe it was, two evenings in committee and then has proceeded not to make himself known within the committees ever since then, and yet this is the same Premier who said he wanted to hear from Manitobans and it's such an open process and on and on about how he's going to be open to all Manitobans. I'm sure that as he's down in Mexico he'll be speaking highly of NAFTA and the free trade agreement.

      We mentioned today in question period that it would certainly be much better if he was out there. Because we do have NAFTA, it would be much better if he was out there promoting free trade with the western provinces, with our western neighbours. They continue to develop trade within them, between them, and yet Manitoba's being left out. I heard last week how the Premier said that 70 percent of our trade was with eastern Canada. I was surprised to hear that. I always thought that it was mainly with the south, the majority of our trade, but I guess the Premier must know better. I guess that's why he's in Mexico now, to make sure that we increase our trade so we're not dependent on the east anymore and we can depend more on the south for our trade.

      Mr. Chairman, this resolution is very fair in that it asks for the Premier (Mr. Doer) to be here while these hearings are on and it would certainly make committee much more interesting to hear from the Premier as Manitobans come to present their views on these because we're certainly not hearing that out of the government members on the committee as they sit in here each and every night. I look forward to another late night tonight and, as promised, we will ramp up the Red Bull later on tonight to make sure we have–[interjection] Just the Red Bull. We're not into that other–[interjection] I hear some cynicism on the other side and I'm surprised. Like, here we are, we're very serious and we're in committee and we should be hearing from Manitobans from all over Manitoba and–

An Honourable Member: Give them a chance; you're doing all the talking.

Mr. Pedersen: Well, that's right. However, there are Manitobans that live outside the Perimeter and we've had some presentations, written presentations in from people that are four hours away and they're not going to drive in for their 10-minute presentation. We also had a resolution that, I believe, was voted down last night to take the committee hearings across the province, and I think there were other resolutions where we would open it up to hear for longer periods when people want to come and present. And yet the government seems to be not interested in opening up the process in getting it out to Manitoba to take it to Manitobans, not expecting Manitobans to come to them. [interjection] Yes, but the guy–[interjection] Yes, right. The one that they would like to speak to is not here and that's the purpose of this whole resolution so that they–you know, there's no sense talking to the lesser bosses. When the boss is the one who makes all the decisions, that's the person to go to, and he's not here.

      This resolution needs to be supported. There is no reason not to. The committee members know that the Premier should be here.

* (19:00)

      Mr. Chairman, there are all these bills, Bill 37 and Bill 17, it would certainly be interesting to–when we get into Bill 17, the last count that I had was over 400 presenters, and he should be there for that. I hope the Minister of Water Stewardship (Ms. Melnick) and the Conservation and Agriculture ministers are all there also for the entire hearings to hear from all 400-and-some presenters that will come to that because my understanding is the people who have signed up there are very passionate about their business.

      You will hear from those presenters because you're cutting off their livelihood with a bill like Bill 17, and, again, we ask where the science is behind on a bill like that. It's politics and not science that a bill like Bill 17 comes forward.

      Bill 38, I don't recall seeing that in the election campaign that they were going to bring in–[interjection] that you were going to run deficits. I'm sure that you were advertising in the campaign to run deficits and balance it once every four years with the Crown corporations. I must have missed that in the campaign literature. Again, I don't read NDP propaganda so maybe I really did miss it, but apparently, most other Manitobans missed it too because it comes as a surprise to all Manitobans to hear that they're going to do away with balanced budgets when that's been the very essence of governments for the last–since 1995.

      It's shameful that they would bring in a major piece of legislation like this just trying to sneak it in. We call it under the dark of night, if you like, and then try to keep people away or try to limit as much as they can public presentations to this, not take it around to the people of Manitoba. We can see what the real purpose of them is here. They're worried about running deficits, and this is how they're going to use the Crown corporations now to balance their budget.

      Mr. Chairman, this resolution should be supported. We think it would be a win for Manitoba, for all Manitobans, if this committee would see fit to support this resolution. With that, I'll turn it over to the next speaker. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: The next speaker is Mrs. Taillieu.

Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): I, too, want to speak in support of this motion that would suspend the Legislative Affairs Committee until the Premier (Mr. Doer) is able to be here, until he has finished his summit in Mexico, because I think it would be very important for the Premier to be at the committee and listen to what Manitobans have to say.

      We know that in the last election, beginning in 1999, the Premier, with a sudden change of heart after all of the things that he called balanced budget legislation while he was in opposition, he actually realized that it was a popular thing with the people of Manitoba so he changed his mind and he campaigned on maintaining balanced budget legislation. In fact, in the most recent election, it was one of the pillars of the campaign, Mr. Chair.

      I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) this morning, I believe it was, I'm losing track of time here. I'm wondering who in the public came to the minister and said, we think you should run deficit budgets. It really is sort of beyond comprehension that you run on a platform of balancing the budget, then after a year, you change your mind and flip-flop and decide that you want to run deficit budgets. I'm curious as to how many Manitobans have actually stepped forward and said this is a wonderful idea to the Finance Minister.

      Since the Finance Minister didn't answer the question, it would be helpful, I think, if the Premier were here and we could ask the question of the Premier, who, Mr. Premier, came to you and said, we think it's a wonderful idea to run deficit budgets?

       I don't believe that Manitobans knew anything about this government's ulterior motive when they campaigned on balancing the budget, and then within a year have plans to scrap it. I don't think that that was being very upfront with Manitobans and I think if we had a recall, as they do in some of the states in the United States, perhaps we'd be going back to the polls now because people would say, wait a minute, we elected you to do something, you're not doing it, maybe we should have a second chance at this.

      But it's interesting that the Premier (Mr. Doer) decides always when it gets a little hot around the province and in the committee room, that he decides he'll leave the country. We've seen some pretty good debate here at the Bill 38 Legislative Affairs Committee, but what's missing is, the Premier isn't here. I think, maybe, that might be by design. Perhaps he's scheduled his time away because he doesn't want to be at committee. He doesn't want to face the public and the public's questions to him about, why are you allowing yourselves to run deficit budgets? I think that the public would question that decision, but he doesn't want to be here to have to answer those kinds of decisions. He leaves that up to the rest of his caucus, leaving them to sit in committee and answer the questions that are coming forward.

      However, we do notice that there are very few questions put to presenters from the government MLAs. There are probably a couple of reasons for that and one that my colleague touched on was perhaps they're being muzzled and not allowed to speak. We've actually seen that happen in other committees where the Member for Radisson (Mr. Jha) actually did want to speak and he was gagged, told, no, you can't speak. Perhaps the reason for that is they might say something just that doesn't hold the party line. Or perhaps they'll say something that might be used against them in the future, because it's all going on Hansard. Or perhaps they really just don't know anything about this legislation. 

      I kind of suspect it might be the latter, or a combination of all those. But I suspect that there's not a strong knowledge of this legislation among the government MLAs. Because I think some of this draconian legislation, specifically Bill 38, Bill 37, Bill 31, Bill 17, I believe that there are probably just a few people that have been privy to some of this legislation and written it without full consultation, not only with their own caucus and Cabinet, but certainly without consultation from Manitobans.

      We certainly know that with these bills because I've spoken to many people in regard to some of these bills. In fact, people are very astounded to see that, we're doing what? We're having bills brought in that actually allow the government to run deficit budgets and raid Crown corporations? That's just not on. They are not happy with that kind of legislation.

      The same holds true for Bill 37. People cannot believe that governments want to have a vote tax and pay themselves a million dollars over a term when there are so many other things that require that amount of money, whether it's health care, whether it's education, whether it's infrastructure, whether it's income assistance, social programs, whatever it may be.

Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, Mrs. Taillieu, I think that was the other bill in the other committee. Perhaps you could come back to the relevance of the motion.

* (19:10)

Mrs. Taillieu: I was just going to reference that the Premier wasn't in that committee either. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, I was just about to reference that the Premier was not in the committee on Bill 37 either, and that's because he's away in Mexico trying to deal with the trade issue, or perhaps he should be in Saskatchewan trying to do a TILMA agreement with the western provinces instead of running off to Mexico so he can sit by the bar and have his martinis. Yet he leaves his caucus and his staff here to handle all the tough questions that he wants to deflect away from himself.

      I think that the motion here should be supported by the government MLAs as well, because I think that they would want to have their Premier (Mr. Doer) here. I don't know why they would not want to have their leader and their Premier here involved in hearing the presentations from the public. I think that they might think that it's wrong that their leader is not here.

      Our leader was here to make a presentation and has been here every night on all of the committee hearings, and I think that's exemplary when you have a leader that leads by example, Mr. Chairperson.

      In fact, what we're doing with this bill at this committee is extremely important for future generations because we don't want to leave a legacy of debt to–at least I don't want to leave a legacy of debt in this province to my grandchildren, and certainly I would ask everybody around this table to really question that and ask yourselves, do you want leave a legacy of debt to your grandchildren? Do you want to sit at this table and say, I tried to make a difference, or do you want to sit at this table and say, I had the opportunity to speak up and support this motion, but I didn't. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I, too, want to just put a few words on the record regarding Bill 38, and I certainly do support the motion that has been brought forward by the Member for Brandon West (Mr. Borotsik).

      Just talking about balanced budgets, I was actually asked to be on the board at the Winkler Credit Union for a number of years, and I was elected in 1980. It was at the time when the credit unions were in some fairly difficult financial times, and they had, in the '70s, made some glaring mistakes and these came to haunt them. Of course, to make a long story short, that's where the stabilization fund came into place. It gave the credit unions an opportunity for 10 years, it gave them 10 years in order to be able to balance their books, and if they were not able to do that within that time limit, they were actually shut down. There were several credit unions in the province of Manitoba that were shut down.

      Now, the reason I'm giving this information, Mr. Chairperson, is the fact that, when you start running deficits, and it doesn't matter where they are, whether they are on a personal level or they are in business that a person is a part of or owns, whether they are in a credit union or even in a province, in order to be able to recover from deficits takes an awful long time.

      That's why I would very, very strongly advise the minister and the government of the day to really, really look seriously at this legislation. I know that the intent is that they're able to draw dollars from other Crown corporations in order to help balance the books. I think that is dangerous. That is no different than in fact if you have several businesses as a part of an organization and you draw from those businesses that are not being able to carry their own weight to show a profit, and you continue to just support them with dollars from the one company that is making money, and I think we've had examples of that and those illustrations given to us here in the past few evenings when we've heard presentations.

      So I would clearly indicate that I believe that's a problem, and I would express that as a grave concern to the government and to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger).

      But specific to the motion here regarding the Premier (Mr. Doer), and, yes, he did indicate that it was very important that people did attend. In fact, I think at one point in time he indicated that he planned to be there for these discussions.

      But I also want to indicate to the committee here tonight that the place that he is at, which is the city of Guanajuato, I was there several years ago. It is a gorgeous city, and so I don't blame him for being out there and probably staying there for an extra few days. In fact, if I were there I believe I would stay for an extra few days myself.

      So just a little bit more history. We had the opportunity to drive out there. The city is just north of Zacatecas for any one of you who have travelled through central Mexico. It's the cultural capital of Bajio  region in the central part of Mexico and is one of the most charming destinations in the nation. So the choice for going there for this conference was well chosen. It was a good choice that he made. Now, it has a semi-arid climate being in central Mexico, and your average temperature is around 17 to 20 degrees. So it's a wonderful area. It's mountainous. It's very scenic.

      The other reason I can also understand why they would want to have their meetings out there is that it's a World Heritage Site that has been designated by UNESCO. The city's historic centre will impress you with its civic and religious buildings built in the colonial era. It was built in the 16th century. I had the opportunity to look at and to tour one of the cathedrals that was close to 500 years old. I would say that the steeples, the highest peak in any one of these–and there were multiple steeples in the cathedral–would have been higher than the Golden Boy. So it's really a wonderful place to see, to visit, and so I can understand why people would want to go there.

      They've also got some other interesting features in the city. It's located–[interjection] Oh, a point of order. Was that a point of order?

Mr. Chairperson: We have a point of order from Mr. Dyck.

Mr. Dyck: No, not a point of order. I thought the minister had a point of order here, and I was just going to try and just indicate the reason. The Premier–

Mr. Chairperson: In that case–excuse me, there has been no point of order raised. However, I would ask you to try to keep your remarks relatively relevant to the motion at hand. Thank you.

Mr. Dyck: Okay. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson.

      The minister is concerned that this is a travelogue, and I do want to bring it back to the reason I'm bringing this information to the table here, which I believe is important because the motion talks about the Premier (Mr. Doer) being absent while we are having the presentations on Bill 38. I'm trying to explain and give reasons as to why I believe he's in Guanajuato and touring the beautiful city out there. So I'm just giving that as a background, Mr. Chairperson, but, yes, I take your admonition seriously and I will draw it back to the motion here.

      However, Mr. Chairman, I did want to indicate just a few more features of this city. It used to be a mining town, and it's a mountainous area, and what they did was when the mines had been mined–if I can use that term–they, in fact, had the road systems going through the mountains from one end of the city to the other, and you go through tunnels from one part of the city to the other. So it's a very interesting city and if you ever have the opportunity–and I know that our Premier is out there at this point in time having meetings and I'm sure that he is working hard on behalf of Manitobans, so that, in fact, he would be able to balance the budget even if they would pass Bill 38.

      Now, I would assume, though, that with the hearings that we've had in the past number of days and evenings that possibly the government is reconsidering Bill 38 as a result of the presentations. I also believe that the Premier will be coming back with added information regarding his conference out there, regarding the purpose of his meeting, which he's going to be able to bring back to the government as well.

* (19:20)

      I can understand where it's important that you be able to leave for awhile, to go somewhere else, to be able to get a new perspective on life, and I'm assuming that that's what has taken place here because this is a city that is culturally diverse. It has a number of artistic disciplines out there which one can access. So I believe it is important that the Premier be in Guanajuato touring the city and also having meetings as he's out there.

      Again, I would encourage any one of the members on this committee, if they ever have an opportunity to go and see this historic city–as I said, it is a UNESCO site–which would help to broaden your vision, and be able to bring some of that information you could glean in that city, which you could bring home and be able to apply that to some of the decisions that you, as government officials, need to make here in the province of Manitoba, yet, I believe it is–[interjection]–yes, the city of–and a very good question I was asked by the Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Cullen)–Guanajuato does have hydro. Its hydro is generated from one of the falls that is located within the area. There's a fairly large canyon; that's where they get the hydro generation from.

      It's a very important point, because I think that's another thing that the Premier would be able to bring back. On that, though, from my recollection as to where the dam was to where the city of Guanayuato is, they did go across the mountains and took a very direct approach. They could have gone around the mountains; I believe it would've been on the west side; however, they went straight through.

      It's very important that we add this to the debate here, because this does add to the running of the province. As I've said all along, I strongly disagree with running deficits–

Mr. Chairperson: One minute.

Mr. Dyck: –if there are any ways that we could save money, we need to do that.

      Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize that 10 minutes does go by very quickly, so I just want to indicate to the members present that I tried to put pertinent information on the record here, which would be specific to the motion that was brought forward by the Member for Brandon West (Mr. Borotsik).

      I want to thank you for that opportunity to be able to do that.

Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this motion.

      When I first came into the room, I thought it might have come forward from one of the government members. It says that all meetings of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs be immediately suspended and only resumed when the Premier's current summit in Mexico ends, so he may be able to attend in person and hear public presentations on Bill 38, The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Act.

      Then I realized that it wasn't brought forward by one of the government members. It was brought forward, of course, by our Finance critic, the Member for Brandon West, Mr. Borotsik.

      The only reason that I stated that I thought it might have come forward from one of the government members is because I thought that, maybe, they would want the Premier to hear the legislation which he brought forward, the legislation which he hadn't told them about, before it was presented in the House, just hours before the last opportunity to present this type of legislation.

      No wonder he did it at the last minute; it's horrific legislation. I would say–and I've stated, I think, in one of the other motions before this House–that it is the worse piece of legislation in Manitoba's history to appear before this Legislature in this province.

      I know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) is a very sincere individual; I don't think he would bring this forward on his own. I know he was directed, as Finance Minister, to bring this forward. The only way he would bring this forward is if he knows that the finances of the Province are already in a decrepit situation, which they shouldn't be because, of course, this province has been on the receiving end of huge increases in transfer payments from Ottawa, the national government, over the last number of years.

      I've stated earlier that I think, someday, with the Province of Ontario perhaps not going to be quite as wealthy in the future as it has been in the past, at least in relation to where the automotive industry is going, that maybe this type of bill coming forward, which allows the government to weasel out of balancing the books every year and never balance them again–legalizing deficits in the future is what this bill does. That's what it should've been called, Mr. Chair.

      I think that it's incumbent upon the Finance Minister that, if he knows that Manitoba's in a less-than-favourable position in regard to balancing the books in the coming year, he actually inform the other Cabinet ministers who would have normally lost 20 percent of their salaries under the balanced budget legislation that's presently there, and debt reduction legislation and taxpayer accountability legislation, that he be honest with them and tell them that's why he's bringing this bill in is to save their salaries, and his own, of course, Mr. Chair.

      I think Manitobans would understand an honest, up-front approach to issues. The government could come out and say, you know, things are getting tough in the future, and Manitobans could make the decision as to whether the government has put enough away in its rainy day fund to use it up when times get tough, as the previous Progressive Conservative government had to do in those days, the belt-wrenching days, Mr. Chair, of huge cutbacks from transfer payments from Ottawa in regard to the future finances of Manitoba.

      Of course, our leader spoke earlier tonight about the expectations of Manitobans. The government did keep it simple in 1999. You know, after 11 years, perhaps there were Manitobans that were looking for a change and that change occurred. [interjection] I think the Minister of Labour (Ms. Allan) is going on into the future, but I would have to remind her, Mr. Chair, that 11 years of her reign will come just about–I believe, to be fair, she and I came into the Legislature at the same time, so did the Finance Minister. But to be fair about the next time the next election rolls around, it will be her turn for the 11 years. Perhaps we will see a flip-flop in change of government at that time as well. By that time, it will probably be up to the 80th flip-flop that's been made by the Premier. We're well into the 50s now since he came in in '99. It won't be any too soon, but as Progressive Conservative governments have had to do in the past, they'll have to come in and clean up the mess that's been left behind.

      I know that this minister, if he's going to be fair to Manitobans, he should tell at least his own Cabinet and caucus, too, I think all members of the government side, at least they deserve to know that the Finance Minister and the Premier know that the finances of the province, from a government perspective, are not in good shape.

      They should be in good shape, as I said earlier, because of all the funds that have come in and because of the increased taxes that this government has collected and actually brought in. The balanced budget legislation actually called for the government to have to go before the people in an election to indicate that they would increase taxes or at least have a referendum on that decision. This government has abused that and already broken balanced budget legislation by not having any kind of referendum, and certainly hasn't been straightforward in any of the election campaigns that it's held to date to say that it wanted to go ahead and break balanced budget legislation and not balance the books every year.

      If their intention is to balance the books every year, Mr. Chair, then you don't need the legislation at all, just continue forward with what we already have and we can continue with the 30-year plan that was put in place to eliminate the debt of the province as well.

      They've already broken that promise as well because the debt has increased tremendously in the province. As you know, we're close to $20 billion, the highest it's ever been. The operating amount and the amount from Manitoba Hydro are certainly higher than they've ever been. The only situation is that Manitoba Hydro is able to pay down its debt at this point through the rates that it's charging ratepayers or hydro users in the province of Manitoba.

      To be fair, the government should be able to do that as well but Manitobans don't trust them anymore because of course, they've taken $203 million in a bill out of Manitoba Hydro earlier in this decade. The interest payments on all of that, spread over the 30 years that money has probably been borrowed on, would amount to at least another $300 million to $350 million, and that has to come out of the future generations of Manitobans.

      I say that this is all relevant because the Premier should be back here to listen to that. It was he who said that he would be here to listen on Friday and listen on Saturday to this type of legislation for Bill 37 and Bill 38.

* (19:30)

      Of course, now he's come in and taken up three days of debate with Bill 17, of which there are over 400 people to come and speak to. That bill, of course, is another one that wreaks havoc on the agriculture community in Manitoba and wreaks havoc on the city of Winnipeg from a processing sector side. They've already driven the processing jobs out of Manitoba, out of Manitoba's capital and into other areas of Manitoba in the processing of the meat products that we have in this province, not just in hogs but other areas as well.

      We have a situation where those jobs have been driven away to other provinces, and certainly you only have to look at the number of hogs being exported into the United States, millions every year for slaughter, Mr. Chair, to know that we've lost those jobs to our American neighbours. Now we know the Premier (Mr. Doer) is in Mexico trying to enhance trade opportunities. He's now been one to speak highly of our neighbours to the south in spite of the fact that he–I don't have the quotes right in front of me, but I pretty well have them by memory, he lambasted the previous government for being in favour of NAFTA and the trade agreements.

      Certainly, he never at that time went outside the Perimeter to ask farmers what they thought of that either because agriculture depends on trade, Mr. Chair. We couldn't begin to eat all of the produce that we could have in Manitoba and you only had to know the small population that we have and you'd only have had to have been at the Minister of Agriculture's breakfast this morning to understand and hear from the likes of John Oliver and Dr. Pierce from the St. Boniface Hospital and Les Rankin in regard to the Flax Council, 2015 project, that they have an excellent project on the go to add value-added to flax in the province of Manitoba. We have a tremendous amount of opportunity here in the land base that we have.

      We cannot idle all of that land. We have to use it to enhance the value of our products, and the Premier should be here to understand that and know that. There are so many issues that you can speak on this, the development of the west, and you know I see the Minister of Water Stewardship (Ms. Melnick) chirping from her chair. I'd just like to remind her that I also had the opportunity of being on the agriculture diversification initiative back in the late '90s when I was the one that seconded the motion to put $3 million of Agriculture Research and Development Initiatives into the St. Boniface facility to combine agriculture and health.

      Of course, the discussion this morning was about how agriculture is the health of the future, and this government's trying to shut it down as opposed to expanding it, so very much a detriment to the future of the province, and they of course need to have more understanding of that.

      I'm going to speak later. I'm sure there'll be another opportunity, Mr. Chair, to speak about the development of the west. I was feeling that I'd have the opportunity to do that here because, of course, it's the direction that the minister's gone tonight that is most interesting in regard to the future development of Manitoba, but I think we'll get into that later.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Maguire, your time has expired. Time has expired.

      Seeing no further speakers, is the committee ready for the question?

An Honourable Member: Question.

Mr. Chairperson: It has been moved by Mr. Borotsik and recommended to the House that all meetings of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs be immediately suspended and only resumed when the Premier's current summit in Mexico ends so he may be able to attend in person to hear public presentations on Bill 38, The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Act.

Voice Vote

Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

Formal Vote

Mr. Borotsik: A recorded vote, please, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairperson: A recorded vote has been requested.

A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 3, Nays 6.

Mr. Chairperson: The motion is defeated.

* * *

Mr. Chairperson: We will now go to presentations.

Mr. Borotsik: I wonder if I could have the indulgence of the committee and ask for leave. There are three presenters who are from out of town, and I wonder if we may hear them first, Mr. Chairman, and then go back to our order?

Mr. Chairperson: There has been a request for leave of the committee to hear out-of-town presenters who are in the room. Is there leave? [Agreed]

So Nos. 17, 31 and 46. Before we proceed with presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider. For the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you're going to accompany your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies. If you need help with photocopying, please speak with our staff.

      As well, I would like to inform presenters that, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with another five minutes allowed for questions from committee members. Also in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list.

      Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mikes on and off. Thank you for your patience. We'll now proceed with public presentations.

Bill 38–The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Act

Mr. Chairperson:  Mr. Gordie Dehnn, please come forward. Do you have a written presentation?

Mr. Gordie Dehnn (Private Citizen): Yes, I do.

Mr. Chairperson: Do you have copies?

Mr. Dehnn: No, I don't.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay, please proceed.

Mr. Dehnn: Okay. I just want to thank you for letting me speak tonight. I especially enjoyed Peter Dyck's lesson on the history and geography of Mexico. In 1995, Manitoba's balanced budget legislation was passed to ensure that the Province lived within its means. It required a referendum before taxes were increased, reduced salaries for Cabinet ministers who ran deficits and put in place measures to prevent the Province from increasing debt.

      Bill 38 essentially kills the 1995 balanced budget legislation. Most importantly, it removes the Province's requirement to balance its operating budget. The Province's operating budget includes all departments under the government's direct control and allows Manitobans to clearly view and assess the financial performance of the government. Under Bill 38 the Province is only required to balance its summary budget. The summary budget includes all government departments under the government's direct control plus government-related operations such as Crown corporations and universities. In effect, the Province can now use the net income of Crown corporations and other reporting agencies such as universities to artificially boost the performance of the government and balance their summary budget.

      Bill 38 not only allows the Province to use the net income of Crowns to balance its books, they will only have to balance their summary budget every four years. The l995 legislation included a requirement that the operating budget be balanced every year. It will be virtually impossible for a deficit to occur with a four-year summary budget even with hundreds of millions of dollars of unfunded spending by core government each year.

      In the extremely unlikely event that the Province can't balance its summary budget, some losses can be excluded. For example, if there is a drought, Manitoba Hydro's loss would not be included in the summary budget balance. Cities, municipalities and individuals have to balance their books. It isn't right that Bill 38 sets a different standard for the province. The Province's overspending will come out of the pockets of Manitobans by raiding the Crowns of increasing debt. Even though the summary of books will balance on paper, the government will need to come up with cash to pay for an extra departmental spending. This cash will come by accumulating more debt or by raiding the Crowns. There were $958 million in net income from the Crowns for the year ended March 31, 2006, and $703 million for the year ended March 31, 2007.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson in the Chair

      The forecast of the years ending March 31, 2008, and 2009, according to the province's budgets, are $686 million and $668 million respectively. This income could be used to offset core deficits under Bill 38. Now, under debt, increases to debt will lead to increases in taxes and means the Province will have less money to pay for services.

       My occupation is schoolteacher. I've been teaching now for about 16 years. I had the pleasure of teaching this young man here today, Brett Rach [phonetic]. I taught him for a number of years, and I've also coached him in rugby. He's supposed to be at rugby practice next Monday. Now he's playing senior men. During that time we had to raise several thousands of dollars throughout the last five, six, seven years to raise money for things like uniforms. This year we had to raise $1,500 just to provide the girls team with a new set of uniforms. Now that doesn't come out of school budgets or phys ed budgets. It comes out of work as coaches and parents and students like Brett helping to pay for jerseys so they can wear.

* (19:40)

      Now, if there's less money for services, as you can see, two weeks ago, I cut my hair for CancerCare research. There are seven or eight of us teachers at Lockport School that cut our hair for cancer research, and we raised over $2,500. Now, if more money's going to pay on the debt, there'd be less money for those services, and I think we'd all be having to cut our hair to pay for such things as cancer care.

      Now, Manitoba already spends more money to service its debt than any other province west of Québec. The average cost to each and every Manitoban to service the debt is well over the national average of $1,143 per person. The $806 million in debt-servicing is already more than the combined 2008-2009 forecast spending for Justice, Finance, Labour and Immigration, Water Stewardship, Science, Energy and Technology, Competitiveness, Training and Trade, and Aboriginal and Northern Affairs.

      While the government might say that Bill 38 is about accounting, it's really about using accounting as an excuse to limit accountability. The current government is trying to cover up the changes in Bill 38 by saying that they have to change how Manitoba reports its financial statements to incorporate generally accepted accounting principles, GAAP, the current accounting standards. Now, the Manitoba PC caucus, the Auditor General, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Chambers of Commerce of Manitoba repeatedly called on the current government to adopt GAAP before they moved to do so in early 2006.

      GAAP doesn't preclude presenting an operating budget in addition to a summary budget. The Province should continue to balance its operating budget every year. This would provide a clearer picture of the Province's ability to live within its means. Now, experts agree that we should have a balanced operating budget every year. Chuck Davidson, the vice-president of policy and communications from the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce says: In a nutshell, Bill 38 makes it virtually impossible for a government not to balance the books and, in fact, allows for governments to run annual operating deficits, and, in turn, it creates the provincial debt. Manitobans should demand more and urge that future governments continue to balance the operating fund on an annual basis to ensure accountability and transparency; Winnipeg Sun, May 20, 2008.

      Adrienne Batra, former provincial director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, goes on to say: What should be raising alarm bells for Manitobans is the government's desire to abandon mandatory debt repayment and living within their means. At a time when revenues are at an all-time high, the last thing the Province should be doing is cooking up ways to spend more and add to the debt. There may be required changes to the balanced budget legislation to incorporate GAAP, but there should not be amendments that water down the legislation. It is one of our most important pieces of legislation, and the Province must move forward to strengthen it for current and future generations of taxpayers.

      Dan Overall from the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce goes on to say: Why can't we have both systems? Surely it makes sense to have a one-year system for the finances that are directly within the government's control, the current balanced budget legislation, and a four-year system that takes into account the big picture, including those entities over which government has only limited control.

      The Business Council of Manitoba stated in their 2000 pre-budget submission: We agree that a four-year rolling average is appropriate when factoring in the performance of Crown corporations and government-reporting entities. We do believe, however, that it is appropriate to keep the provisions of the balanced budget law that require annual compliance on the operating line of government.

      I want to thank you for letting me speak tonight. I enjoyed it.

      Any questions?

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Dehnn.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon West): Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Dehnn.

      I think you touched on all of the salient points, actually, and I know the Finance Minister was very appreciative when you mentioned the fact that a lot of individuals, including the Auditor General, were calling for a summary budget to be compliant with GAAP. He was excited about that, but when you went on to say that there should also be a core operating budget, he didn't quite mention that.

      Mr. Dehnn, you also mentioned in your presentation municipalities at one time. Are you aware that under provincial law actually–it's The Municipal Act–municipalities are required to balance their budget every year? If there's a loss, they're required to then tax the next year to recover that loss.

      Do you think that that's a wise thing to ask the municipalities to do, or should we allow them to have a four-year rolling average and let them spend more money in three years and have them try to make it up in the fourth year?

Mr. Dehnn: Well, it's a big question. From being a private citizen, the way I look at it is that you only have so much money to spend and that's all you have to spend and that's what you should spend within your means. To raise taxes and to spend over your means is being irresponsible, period.

      I was in charge of phys ed for a number of years in my program, and if I only had $3,500 to spend on phys ed equipment and I ordered more, then I was in some serious trouble and had to take out from some other places like textbooks. That was not fair. I learned the hard way, getting in a lot of trouble for that. I don't agree with that. If that's what you have to spend, then that's all you have to spend on that.

Mr. Borotsik: My last question. We've just, not that long ago, gone through an election campaign. Do you recall at any time, did you receive any materials, did you have any advertising from the NDP who had indicated that one of their campaign platform, or planks, was going to be the fact that they were going to repeal the balanced budget legislation?

Mr. Dhenn: No. I never saw that at all.

Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Thank you very much for your insightful presentation. I'm just going to read this to you. The bill that we have before us, as you well know, is Bill 38, The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Act. It replaces The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Accountability Act.

      I find it an oxymoron that, you know, you're replacing debt repayment with fiscal management, a bit of a contradiction in terms to my way of thinking because debt repayment has always been a part of fiscal management in any business or home in Manitoba. Responsible management would tell you that. So paying interest and making those payments is a credible, you know, you can borrow money within your means, but you still have to make those payments.

      Your comment, and I'm well aware of the number, somewhere just over the $800 million that we're paying in interest. I was impressed by all of the departments that you named that the interest payments are higher than those total budgets for those departments.

      Are you aware that in the time it took you to make your presentation, the province paid $16,000 in interest? That's what that breaks down to and I wonder what you think of that.

Mr. Dehnn: What I think of that? Well, I could spend a lot of money, a lot of rugby uniforms, and new equipment for our club, I'll tell you that much, instead of raising, doing things like bake sales and fundraising through things like bingos and spending extra time doing that, plus buying–in my experience, schools never seem to have enough money for whatever reason, and $16,000 in the time it took me to speak, in our budget, would increasingly brought more textbooks and a lot more stuff for any school or school division.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Maguire, in about 30 seconds or less.

Mr. Maguire: You could break it down even further to $1,600 a minute, so there are your uniforms in probably the time it'll take me to ask this question.

      You've been very responsible with the presentation and I know that Manitobans want to be accountable. The money that I just talked about, I mean, do you feel that it could be better spent if we continued on a plan of 30 years, whatever the term might be, to reduce the deficit of the Province of Manitoba, or reduce the debt, pardon me, of the Province of Manitoba and use those interest dollars, obviously, on things like more beds in our hospitals, particularly hiring more doctors, more nurses, and the shortages that we have, putting more recreational facilities in place to prevent health problems in the first place by–you know, you're obviously involved in phys ed.

      I've always been a big promoter of the fact that we need preventative medicine in Manitoba to help alleviate the future costs that we have in the system as much as we possibly can. Can you comment on whether you think that would be appropriate or not?

Mr. Dehnn: Yes, absolutely. You know, we're spending more money servicing the debt every year by going further and further in debt. That means less money to go in essential services such as like, again, where it hits home for me, especially in schools and school divisions. We're always trying to save a buck and trying to make a buck, either by doing things like fundraising in schools.

* (19:50)

      I know, just driving around the province, lucky thing I have a truck. Unfortunately, the gas is expensive, but if I was driving a small car my car would probably be ripped apart because the roads that we're on–if we don't have any money because there's more and more money servicing the debt then it's just not right.

      At the end of the day you've got to pay that money back. We have to have a plan to do that. Any financial planner will look at that and say to you, you have to get your house in order; you pay this back; you can't go on irresponsibly spending.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you very much for your time with us this evening.

Mr. Dehnn: Thank you. I enjoyed it.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Up next, in terms of the out-of-town presenters that we are aware that are here tonight, I have No. 31, Ms. Valerie Chatain-White. Apologies, if I'm not pronouncing that correctly. I'm probably not.

      I see you have paper with you. Do you have copies of your presentation for us?

Ms. Valerie Chatain-White (Private Citizen): Yes, I do.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Fantastic. Thank you.

Ms. Chatain-White: To all the members of the committee here, I would like to say thank you for being here. Generally, I'm very pleased with the work that each and every one of you does every day on behalf of all Manitobans.

      However, when it comes to Bill 38, I've been so disturbed with what I've read in the newspapers that I have put pen to paper, and I'm here today to share my thoughts with you.

      Why, after years of balanced budgets, would we even contemplate reversing a sensible fiscal requirement? Is this an attempt to hide a soon-to-be-realized capital loss?

      We've seen, in recent years, the government has accessed funds, such as the Manitoba Hydro rainy day fund, for reasons that, quite frankly, seem to me merely balancing the budget. If the budget was never really balanced, whereby it required accessing other specific surpluses, I truly fear what we're going to see if the balanced budget requirement is lifted.

      Operating budgets must balance. We must know where our province stands in real numbers, not in deficit numbers.

      We live in a time where capital markets have just barely resurfaced from U.S. sub-prime mortgage scandals. We know that it is not only U.S. citizens that live on credit. More and more evidence surfaces daily that Canadians are no longer a nation of savers, but a nation living on credit.

      I see it every day in my financial practice. It is not limited to the very young; it plagues all Canadians. I see Manitobans in their 40s, 50s and 60s, pondering retirement with substantial debt loads, who think nothing of continuing debt financing during their retirement years.

      If Manitoba opts for a system where the summary budget need balance only every four years, we will never truly know where we stand. It is sound financial management to take stock of income and expenses every year.

      I'd like to ask you to ponder a question, and don't answer this, please. Just think about it. Each and every one of you in this entire room, including the people behind me, think about your personal credit cards.

      Do you determine what you're going to pay, based on your rolling average of the last four years of what's been on your credit card? Don't answer that; it could be embarrassing for some of you. Not everyone out there has a zero-balance credit card. I think we need to take these topics to a level that the average Manitoban will truly understand, and I have more examples coming on that.

      Just because some Manitobans don't fully understand the basics of finance and the necessity of budgeting does not mean that our government, which is mandated to take care of all Manitobans, should blindly augment debt financing. If we know that the current national average per capita allocated annually to debt repayment is in the range of $1,143 per person, what will it increase to, once we factor in Manitoba debt? What will it be for our future generations?

      Manitoba has much to offer, or I would have moved away a very long time ago. There were many offers I turned down. It has come a long way in fiscal responsibility, but it's definitely not what I would class as a super have province.

      Our population faces many challenges on many fronts–educational, agricultural, timely medical accessibility, to mention but a few. We do have some valuable resources that, fortunately, are extremely coveted, such as water, pulp, minerals and even pockets of oil.

      I urge you to be good stewards of all resources for all Manitobans now and into the future. If we owe future generations an ecologically inhabitable province, we also owe them a proper balance sheet.

      GAAP is intended to provide clarity and transparency. How are we to have clarity and transparency when the summary budget will only be done every four years? Forecasting budgets don't obliterate the need for annual balanced operating budgets. Governments have an obligation to live within their means, the same as the rest of us. This means that there must be tough decisions taken on occasion. Governments cannot and should not simply create paper money where none exists. This can only lead to serious future shortfalls.

      At what point will taxes need to be increased to cover shortfalls? At what point are we going to see cuts in social services? Abolition of the 1995 balanced budget law is not the answer to our future prosperity. I urge each and every one of you at this table to reconsider this. As an individual Manitoban, I vote against this proposed Bill 38 as it stands.

      I have gone and looked specifically at two sections that really disturb me, and I would like to leave you with thoughts of reworking section 3(1), which is the balance at the end of the fiscal year because, quite frankly, when I read that, it looks to me like we're creating a rolling four. Well, if you don't do a rolling four on your household budget or your credit cards, why would you do it with the province?

      The other area that I find deeply disturbing because it will be hugely misunderstood by the public at large is this debt retirement fund. That sounds to me, I'm sad to say, like a good catch phrase to rename a lot of the debt issues. I do not believe the average Manitoban will have a grasp on that. I do urge you to debate those two areas, in particular, going forward. Thank you for your time.

Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): Thank you, Ms. Chatain-White. Hopefully, I've pronounced it correctly. Obviously, you have a very good understanding of accounting. When you look at rolling four averages and your concern about the debt retirement fund and economic forecasts that are out there, do you have any doubt that we're headed into debt financing in the next few years? I'm not trying to lead you on in an answer, but do you think this is headed towards debt financing the way this bill is being presented?

Ms. Chatain-White: Yes, it would be simply because if you never have a clear–

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Sorry, just a moment. For the purposes of Hansard who will be recording everything we say tonight, I just need to recognize each person who speaks. How do you pronounce your last name properly? Is it Chatain-White? Okay, thank you.

Ms. Chatain-White: Where was I? I believe I was saying that, yes, in fact, I do have some serious concerns about where we're going forward. You don't have to look too far back in our Manitoba history to know that there were some very critical areas, such as the Manitoba Superannuation Fund, that were in serious, serious trouble.

      Now my belief is that that is currently being addressed and there's been a lot of progress made. However, if all of these funds and surpluses from the various accounting departments end up on some interesting rolling four average, how are we really going to have an accurate balance at the end of the day? When I took basic math in school, one plus one equals two. It's not a matter of five minus four equals whatever you think it was the last five years. I believe there were some major accounting scandals in the past because of errors of that type. So creativity on this area, I think, is very dangerous.

      I have no doubt that balancing a government budget is a huge endeavour. There are multiple areas to be considered. Hats off to everybody in this room who worked so diligently on these tasks, but I do want to urge you to make it more transparent because wrapping it up won't do it.

* (20:00)

Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Thanks, Valerie. I'm sorry I missed part of that. I was just in the other committee room and I sat here specifically to listen to your presentation, so sorry about that.

      I know that you have done a wonderful job because I know that you are intricately involved in the financial community, and you understand that very, very well, probably more so than most people around this table. In that regard, I think I would almost want to call you an expert in this area. We need to listen to more people like you who bring these very valid points forward.

      Give us an indication of what would happen if we look at the balance–the budget now, and rolling it for four years into the future and interest rates go up 5 percent.

Ms. Chatain-White: I did leave my financial calculator in my car, however, I would suggest that if we're already quoting daily interest figures of debt repayment such as we heard from the previous speaker's presentation, and you now compound that with rising inflation as well as interest rates, we could be in some serious trouble. My fear with the rolling of anything without specific balances is the fact that you will not know until it's far too late whether or not you've actually compounded your deficit to a point where you will have to increase taxes, and I don't think anybody in this room wants to increase taxes.

Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Thank you very much for your presentation. Certainly, I appreciated your putting it down into a language that, I