LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Thursday,
March 8, 2007
LOCATION –
CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell)
VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto)
ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6
Members of the Committee present:
Hon. Messrs. Gerrard, Selinger
Messrs.
Aglugub, Cummings, Derkach, Hawranik, Maguire, Martindale,
APPEARING:
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, MLA for
Hon. Dave Chomiak, MLA for Kildonan
Mr.
Hugh McFadyen, MLA for
Mr.
Ron Schuler, MLA for
Hon. Scott Smith, MLA for Brandon West
Ms.
Carol Bellringer, Auditor General of
MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:
Auditor General's Report – Examination of the Crocus Investment Fund – May 2005
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Will the Standing Committee on Public Accounts please come to order.
Our first order of business this evening is to elect a Vice-Chairperson. First of all, are there any nominations?
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I nominate Mr. Swan.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Swan has been nominated. Are there any other nominations?
Is it agreed that Mr. Swan be the Vice-Chair? [Agreed]
Mr. Swan has been nominated as the Vice-Chair for this evening and will only act for this evening. Corrected. He is Vice-Chair until another Vice-Chair is elected.
This meeting has been called to consider the Auditor General's Report – Examination of the Crocus Investment Fund, dated May 2005. Before we get started, I would like to indicate that there has been an agreement between myself as the Chair and the House Leader of the government that the committee has agreed to sit until 10 o'clock this evening and that at 9:15 or at 9:30 there will be an availability of Mr. Scott to answer questions. He is the Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade. The first portion of the meeting is then dedicated to asking questions of the Auditor General, also of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) and, in addition to that, the Deputy Minister of Finance.
Is the committee agreed to what I have just laid out before it? [Agreed]
Thank you.
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): I have a motion to present to Public Accounts.
I move
THAT questions and answers at Public Accounts Committee this evening be restricted to a maximum of four minutes for each question and each answer.
Mr. Chairperson: Do you have that motion written down?
The motion is in order.
Motion presented.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): I don't agree with restricting questions and certainly answers to four minutes. Existing rules, which I should note, have been agreed upon by all parties in this Legislature, allow 10 minutes for a question and 10 minutes for a response. There are going to be questions which may require a full and complete answer by any witnesses that are here tonight, and it would be inappropriate, at this meeting, to suddenly restrict that to four minutes.
I should add that I expect it's going to take the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) and someone from the Liberal Party more than 10 minutes to apologize to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) and to Manitobans for the misinformation that has been–
Mr. Chairperson: Order, Mr. Swan. [interjection] Excuse me, Mr. Swan, if we're going to have a productive meeting this evening, I expect you to respect the Chair. When I've asked for order, I expect you to comply with that.
Now, we may proceed, but I ask you to contain your comments to issues that are relevant to the motion.
Mr. Swan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I've indicated, there are a number of varied and sundry reasons why limiting comments to 10 minutes would not be appropriate for this meeting.
Mr. Hawranik: I would like to speak to the motion. Certainly, Mr. Chairperson, we've had difficulty in the past at Public Accounts. We've seen nothing but rambling answers to questions that we've posed to various ministers. It would speed up the process and we've got many questions to ask tonight. We're going until 10 o'clock this evening and there are only three hours to get those questions out. We want to get to the bottom of the issues that are relevant I think to Manitobans who have been affected by the Crocus scandal. The four minutes will force ministers to be concise and be to the point.
I can tell you, Mr. Chairperson, that we've seen long answers both in Question Period and in this forum and we've gotten absolutely nowhere in terms of answers. We want to get to the bottom of it and I think four minutes is clearly enough for a clear and concise answer and a full answer to any question that we're about to pose this evening.
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Chairperson. I think we've had six or seven meetings where we've discussed Crocus. We've heard the same questions and the same answers, and now we're in our seventh or eighth meeting.
I might indicate that the last meeting I thought was a breakthrough for this committee wherein we seemed to work collaboratively and we moved toward some working together collaboratively.
I suggest that, since there's not agreement on changing the existing rules, we just proceed to questions and answers and get as much work as we can done as quickly as possible, Mr. Chairperson, and get down to the business of dealing with the questions and the answers, because I have questions and all members have questions with respect to certain comments that have been made in the last two weeks by individuals, that I think deserve an apology. So I think we should get right down to it.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay, thank you for your input. I will read the motion one more time.
THAT the questions and answers at Public Accounts Committee this evening be restricted to a maximum of four minutes to each question and each answer.
That was moved by Mr. Gerald Hawranik. Is the committee prepared to accept the motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Voice Vote
Mr. Chairperson: Those who are in agreement with the motion, will you please indicate by saying yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Chairperson: Those who are opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Chairperson: In my view, the Nays have it.
I'm sorry, Mr. Hawranik?
Mr. Hawranik: No, go ahead.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay, the motion is defeated.
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable members for their participation here. Now, we will turn our attention–I'm sorry, Mr. Hawranik.
Mr. Hawranik: Yes, I have a further motion to present to the Public Accounts Committee.
I move
THAT the Public Accounts Committee hear the witnesses scheduled for this evening's meeting under oath.
Mr. Chairperson: The motion is in order.
Motion presented.
Mr. Hawranik: I would like to speak briefly to the motion. I refer to section 37(1) and 37(2) of The Legislative Assembly Act.
Under section 37(1): "Any standing or select committee of the Legislative Assembly to which any bill, or other matter or cause, has been referred by the assembly, may examine witnesses upon oath upon matters relating to the bill, matter or cause."
Under section 37(2): "The chairman or any member of the committee may administer the oath to any witness."
* (19:10)
I present this motion to the committee, Mr. Chairperson, because we certainly want to get to the bottom of what's behind the Crocus scandal. Certainly, if members opposite are truthful in their answers, there's absolutely no consequence, there's absolutely nothing to be afraid of; and, certainly, if they have nothing to be afraid of, they ought to be supporting this motion. If they don't intend to answer correctly or will not answer truthfully, then, of course, they won't support the motion. So I would ask members opposite, if you've got nothing to hide in respect of answers that are given at this committee, that all witnesses who are going to be testifying here at this committee be put under oath.
Mr. Chomiak: I have been a member of the Legislative Assembly for 17 years and stood in the House, and I've heard it said over and over again that we're all honourable members and we all are supposed to bring matters to the Legislature which we know to be factual. In fact, we have witnesses like the provincial auditor that members opposite have the audacity to say ought to be under oath, Mr. Chairperson.
When the Leader of the Opposition said, and I quote, on Tuesday, February 27, talking about the Premier and the Minister of Finance: "He had a duty to disclose information and he didn't. . . It's the most cynical, manipulative coverup," that "Greg Selinger and Gary Doer failed to disclose the November 2000 cabinet memo." The Leader of the Opposition was told that he was wrong, and he has not yet apologized for putting inaccurate information on the record. Now they have the audacity to come to this committee and ask to be under oath.
I have been a part of this Legislature and accepted people like Don Orchard who works in the Leader of the Opposition's office and I heard his words for years and years and years and never asked Don Orchard to go under oath, though I could have wanted to and perhaps should have in the past. We are all honourable members.
The Auditor is respected by the House as an independent member of this committee. And the members want us to put the provincial auditor under oath, Mr. Chairperson? As a witness, I find that abhorrent. I find that typical of members opposite to go after individuals, to go after procedures when their facts are proved inaccurate and they have been over and over and over again. Members opposite attempt to bring up procedural issues and attack personalities rather than deal with the issues at hand.
There are 33,000 people who are affected by this, and members opposite are trying to use that to their political advantage instead of getting on to the business of trying to maximize returns for those individuals and at the same time, Mr. Chairperson, dragging this out by ringing the House bells for 16 days, going to committee seven, eight, nine times asking the same questions, putting inaccurate information on the record. And they have the audacity to come to this Chamber and ask that members who've been part of this Chamber for decades be put under oath. I find that to be both inappropriate, inaccurate, and I think that the very fact the member brought that motion on a procedure matter and would dare have the provincial auditor, who is appearing as a witness, be put under oath is just a testament to what level they will stoop to make a political point. I just–[interjection]
I know the member very much likes moot court and likes to play it like a court, but these are issues affecting people's lives. It's not cute statements, it's not fancy statements, it's real issues. You ought not to play games with people in this Chamber. Have some respect for what people say in this Chamber as honourable members and not play it like a courtroom where you think you can cross-examine. Members are grown up enough here and have been in this Chamber long enough and been elected long enough, they don't have to be put under oath by the newly elected member and play cute games.
With that, Mr. Chairperson, I will not vote in favour of this motion because it's another cynical attempt to move procedure ahead of facts when the members are afraid of the facts. They've been proven wrong in the facts last week and are not ready to apologize for inaccurate statements. The Leader of the Opposition said the provincial auditor ought to have seen the letter. When he was corrected, he never came forward and said: I was wrong. That letter was on file. If the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to apologize and the Leader of the Liberal Party, perhaps we'll be prepared to accept some of their recommendations. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
Mr. Chairperson: Just a point of order, ladies and gentlemen. It's not a point of order from me. However, I would like to clarify that the Auditor General is not here as a witness. The Auditor General is here to provide advice and to give answers but not to appear as a witness. This is in accordance with rule 114 of our rule book.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, the Government House Leader knows full well that this has nothing to do with the provincial auditor. The motion that's being put forward is put forward because we have asked dozens, if not hundreds, of questions of this Minister of Finance, whether it's Question Period, Public Accounts, you name it, and this Minister of Finance has intentionally misled the Legislature and this committee. We're going to likely be dealing with that, and we want–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, Mr. Lamoureux.
Point of Order
Mr. Chairperson: There's a
point of order.
Mr. Swan: I believe that
the Member for
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Ladies and gentlemen, if we're going to get anywhere tonight, I would ask that members around the table at least recognize the Chair in terms of trying to keep some order in this Chamber and some order around the table.
I regret that I did not personally hear the comments that were made by Mr. Lamoureux, and so, therefore, I'm going to take this matter under advisement, but I would caution members around this table to make sure that they use language that is appropriate for the discussion at this table.
With that, Mr. Lamoureux, I will allow you to continue, but as I've indicated I will take this matter under advisement.
* * *
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, all we ask is that Manitobans and the Crocus shareholders want the truth, and if this motion is going to assist Manitobans and Crocus shareholders in getting the truth it is worthy of passing. For that reason, I believe that it would be advisable, if the government has nothing to hide, why would they not allow it to pass? Why would they oppose it? I don't understand why they would oppose a simple motion of this nature if they've got nothing to hide, of course.
Mr. Swan: Mr. Chairperson, maybe I will take your invocation to take it down a step or two. That's fair enough.
Certainly, one of the concerns is that if
someone is put under oath and that becomes evidence given under The Manitoba
Evidence Act, as every member around this table is aware there is an existing
lawsuit that's been filed in the Court of Queen's Bench of
If there is going to be evidence led which could have an impact on a lawsuit of that magnitude and of that importance, I think we should be very, very careful, Mr. Chair, about an errant question, about an answer impacting not only Manitoba taxpayers, impacting not only Crocus shareholders, but potentially other parties who are interested in this lawsuit who are not here, who don't have standing to come forward and speak to this committee.
We need to have those matters dealt with in a very proper way, and I'm very disappointed to hear the Leader of the Opposition chirping from across the table. He, like I, has completed his law degree. We both worked at the same law firm and I thought had received a pretty good education. He should know that by allowing matters to get off the track by improper questions and answers being made that that could very well impact this lawsuit.
I am expecting that when my friends across the table reflect on that fact they'll realize that what seems like a very punchy political thing to say tonight is not in the best interest of Crocus shareholders; it's not in the best interest of Manitobans; and it's unfair to the other parties.
So those are the reasons, Mr. Chair, that I will not be supporting the motion that's been put forward. Thank you.
* (19:20)
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Swan.
Seeing no other hands up, I will read this motion one more time:
Moved by Mr. Gerald Hawranik
THAT the Public Accounts Committee hears the witnesses scheduled for this evening's meeting under oath.
Is the committee ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Chairperson: The question before the committee has been read now. Shall the motion pass?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Voice Vote
Mr. Chairperson: Those who are in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
Formal Vote
Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to have a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairperson: A recorded vote has been requested. Will the Clerk please count the hands. [interjection]
Okay, we'll repeat the procedure in terms of asking for the Yeas and Nays.
A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 4, Nays 6.
Mr. Chairperson: The motion is accordingly defeated.
Point of Order
Mr. Chairperson: A point of order, Mr. Hawranik?
Mr. Hawranik: Yes, a point of order, Mr. Chair. I would just like to let the record read that all Progressive Conservative and Liberal MLAs voted in support of the motion and all NDP MLAs voted against.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Hawranik, that is not a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Swan: I would also like to introduce a motion, Mr. Chair. The motion reads:
THAT we urge the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party to withdraw their public statements that the Minister of Finance withheld documents from the Office of the Auditor General and to apologize to the Minister of Finance for making those public statements.
Mr. Chairperson: The motion is in order, and I will read it. It's moved by Mr. Swan
THAT this committee urge the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party to withdraw their public statements that the Minister of Finance withheld documents from the Office of the Auditor General and to apologize to the Minister of Finance for making those public statements.
Mr. Swan: Mr. Chair, with the heightened political sense that I believe many people have–there are a great number of people that are present tonight–I'm certainly concerned about various attempts that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party to make misleading statements that have perhaps affected certain people's view of this situation.
The first point is that these two gentlemen unfortunately misled the public by claiming that the–[interjection]
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. Swan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
By claiming that the November 2000 Cabinet submission was, and I use their
exact words, "withheld and hidden from the Auditor General." While
every member of this Legislature received a letter from the Auditor General's
office a couple of days ago, February 28, 2007, and the Auditor General stated,
and I quote: "The November 2000 submission referred to above was included
in the documents obtained during the course of the audit and contributed to the
audit evidence used to reach the conclusions reported in May 2005." So
that's issue No. 1. I would urge the Member for
The second point is that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party misled the public by claiming that Cabinet ministers had previously denied direct knowledge of potential–[interjection]
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Let's have one speaker at a time, please. Mr. Swan has the floor.
Mr. Swan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll begin again. The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party misled the public by claiming publicly that Cabinet ministers had previously denied any direct knowledge of the potential for a liquidity problem at Crocus, a liquidity problem that never actually came to pass.
The facts, and I would urge the members of the Conservative Party to open their ears and to listen. In fact, the following statement was made by the former Minister of Industry in the Legislature on June 1, 2005, and that is just one example where these comments are proven false. The minister said on that day, June 1, 2005: "If you're asking about whether there were questions about liquidity, the Premier, the Minister of Finance and myself have been clear. We had discussions with both Crocus and ENSIS regarding liquidity and pacing."
The third item which is a matter of concern and gives rise to the reasons that we are urging these gentlemen to apologize is that, again, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party misled the public by asserting that the contents of the November 2000 Cabinet submission, quote, would have produced different finding in the Auditor's final report, end quote. The facts on this matter, in fact, the former Auditor General, Mr. Jon Singleton, said in the media and I do quote: "There's nothing about this document that wasn't covered in our report." And that was printed in the Winnipeg Sun on February 26, 2007.
The fourth item which is very concerning is that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party misled the public by claiming that the November 2000 Cabinet submission is inconsistent with the time line outlined in the Auditor General's report. I would refer the members across and the Member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire) can listen as well. On page 145 of that report, the Auditor General stated and I quote: The Crocus Investment Fund was very up front with the Department of Industry, Economic Development and Mines "as early as mid-2000 on the fact that they would run into liquidity problems if pacing continued to be based on 70 percent of gross sales."
Fifth, Mr. Chair, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party misled the public by asserting, again publicly, that the potential liquidity problems identified in the November 2000 submission led to the collapse of the Crocus Fund. In fact, the facts are the Auditor General stated on page 123 of the lengthy report and I quote: "The Fund has met the minimum liquid reserve requirements as set out in The Crocus Investment Fund Act."
So, Mr. Chair, we have five statements that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition and made by the Leader of the Liberal Party. All five of those have been shown by the Auditor General, the current Auditor General, the previous Auditor General and, indeed, any review of Hansard from statements made by the Premier, by the Minister of Finance, by the Minister of Industry have been shown to be untrue. So that's why I'm going to ask this committee to urge those individuals to make an apology for those misstatements. If that happens and they choose not to, we can only urge them to do so. We think it's the right thing to do. Come forward and state that you were incorrect. Apologize to the Minister of Finance and, effectively, to Manitobans.
Let's get on with questions and answers. We have the Minister of Finance here ready to answer questions. We have the Auditor General and her staff here ready to answer questions. Let's move on, but first, let's clear the air and I'm going to give those two gentlemen the chance to apologize for the untrue statements they've been making publicly for the past two weeks. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Tim Sale (Fort Rouge): Mr. Chair, I'm going to take a slightly different tack on this and just tell the leaders of the opposition parties that when I was a rookie MLA in 1995, I'm pretty passionate about things and can get fairly excited and perhaps the member who is also retiring from that wonderful place of Neepawa, will remember this. He may remember this, but I made an intemperate remark in regard to the former Finance Minister, Mr. Stefanson. Your former member whom you hounded out of his seat in Carman, Mr. Rocan, whom you had your friend defeat as a–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Sale, let's be relevant. Thank you.
* (19:30)
Mr. Sale: –Mr. Chair, and I'll link it up immediately. He came to me as an old hand in the Legislature and he said: You know, you need to get up on your feet and apologize right away. I did. I got up on my feet and I apologized. I said I was wrong. I made an intemperate and incorrect statement and I withdraw it.
That's one of the rules of this Legislature is that when you are completely wrong, as you have been shown to be by officers of this Legislative Assembly, impartial officers in whose appointment you had a hand, you then have a duty as an elected official to say, look, I want to get at the substance of the issue I'm concerned about but I was wrong on this issue; I said things that were intemperate and wrong, and I apologize for that because my integrity as the leader of a political party depends on people being able to count on my truthfulness and my willingness to take responsibility for what I say in public.
Perhaps you will learn that over time. Some of us learn it more quickly than others, but you made a very bad mistake. You not only impugned the Finance Minister, you impugned others, as well, by making statements that are clearly, on the record, incorrect.
The same is true of Mr. Gerrard. He has no excuse of being a rookie. He has no excuse of not understanding how this Legislature works. You may have an excuse because you're relatively new at the game. All you have to do is apologize, and it's remarkable how the issue goes away. You're not embarrassed anymore. You don't have to look foolish. You don't have to defend yourself to Channel 5 and say, you know, obviously you were wrong. So why don't you just apologize? It's a simple motion and I suggest, Mr. Chair–
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Mr. Sale, excuse me. I would caution all honourable members to place their comments through the Chair rather than directly to each other across the table. Thank you.
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Chairperson, I would just ask that, in the absence of other comments from members of the committee, we put this to the vote. I have an opening statement I would like to make in which I will deal with some of the issues of integrity, competence, management of the public purse and other related issues. I look forward to getting on with that opening statement and getting by the time wasting that we're engaged in presently.
Mr. Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Chairperson: The question before the committee is as follows:
Moved by Mr. Swan
THAT that the committee urge the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party to withdraw their public statements that the Minister of Finance withheld documents from the office of the Auditor General and to apologize to the Minister of Finance for making those public statements.
Shall the motion pass?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Mr. Chairperson: Those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Chairperson: Those opposed to the motion, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. The motion is accordingly passed.
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: We will now turn our attention to the questioning of the Minister of Finance, and I would ask the Minister of Finance to take the Chair, or you can stay there. It doesn't matter. Wherever you feel more comfortable, sir.
Does the honourable minister wish to make an opening statement?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Not at this time. I'm ready for questions.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Does the official opposition have an opening statement?
Mr. McFadyen: I do, Mr. Chairperson.
When Crocus ceased trading over two years
ago, it left 34,000 Manitobans with losses that are today estimated at $100
million. Because these shareholders couldn't get justice, Mr. Chairperson,
they have now brought a lawsuit against the government of
Mr. Chairperson, as the official
opposition, whether we like it or not, we have to ask questions about what went
wrong in Crocus and what the government did to either address or not address
the issues that were then being brought to their attention. We regret that the
government has responded with attacks just as they did with the former Member
for
He was vindicated in the face of attacks and a comment by the former minister, the NDP minister Ms. Mihychuk, that he had launched a smear campaign. The sort of attacks that we saw against Mr. Loewen at the time are a modus operandi of this government and we see them happening again tonight. We see the counteroffensive, the personal attacks, the impugning of integrity and the counteroffensive that has been launched by this NDP government. We've seen it before. It's like a bad movie and we're seeing it all over again.
Mr. Chairperson, this isn't about the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) and his feelings or my feelings or anybody else's. I know they want apologies from members who are advancing questions and demanding answers, but the issue is that there are 34,000 Manitobans who are sitting on losses of $100 million.
Mr. Chairperson, we have agreed to and we have been calling for a full public inquiry where all of us would be prepared to go under oath to talk about what we knew, when we knew it and what we did when we came across the information, and the only people who are fighting a full public inquiry are the NDP ministers and members opposite.
Tonight we see again they are unwilling and unprepared to go under oath and one can only ask why that is. Well, Mr. Chairperson, we have lots of important questions. Why didn't the government trust Manitobans in 2000 with the information that it had within its possession that Crocus was facing pending liquidity problems and that Crocus was not doing what its prospectus said it would do? Why didn't they demand an immediate review to see if the liquidity issues that they were warned about in 2000 were a sign of other problems such as valuation problems? We now know that a proper review in 2000 would have begun to uncover the issues that eventually led to the collapse of Crocus four years later.
So why do we need answers to these
questions, Mr. Chairperson? For several reasons. We need to do what's right for
Crocus shareholders. Secondly, we need to protect
Mr. Chairperson, this isn't about blaming
individuals, whether it be the Premier (Mr. Doer) or anybody else. It's about
our province. It's about our ability to move beyond Crocus. It's about creating
an environment where young people want to stay in
We have a black cloud over our capital markets today, Mr. Chairperson, a black cloud over our capital markets, and it could have been moved away if this government had simply had the courage to come clean in 2004 and call an inquiry. It could have been over 18 months ago and we could have been on with the job of moving forward as a province. Instead they have stonewalled for two years. They've provided misleading and deceptive responses. They've refused to answer direct questions and this is why we are where we are today.
So let's not get into an issue whether the
Finance Minister has hurt feelings. Let's talk about the $100-million losses on
the part of
If past history is any indication, we won't get much closer to the truth after tonight than we have after all these months and years of asking questions of this government, and that's because this committee doesn't have the powers it needs to get the responses that Manitobans deserve. It's because we can't compel witnesses to attend. We know Hugh Eliasson, an outstanding civil servant, a respected civil servant, who was the government's appointment to the board of Crocus, cannot be compelled to attend; Charlie Curtis, John Clarkson and others who can shed light on what went on in terms of their knowledge of what happened at Crocus and their discussions with members of the government and what direction they received and what the nature of those conversations were. We can't force ministers to respond under oath because the members opposite from the NDP caucus have said they're not prepared to submit themselves to responding to questions under oath.
Well, Mr. Chairperson, we will do our very best in this very political theatre tonight to move forward. We are prepared to go under oath and respond to questions and to be held accountable, and that is in stark contrast to what we've had from the groups across.
* (19:40)
Now, Mr. Chairperson, we're going to hear a lot of legalistic deflection of arguments. The Member for Minto (Mr. Swan), whom I've great respect for in his legal tactical skills, will be raising points of order tonight in order to shut down questions from members on this side of the House. He'll be using every procedural trick in the book to prevent us from getting at the facts, and that's why we need a full public inquiry.
We certainly look forward to asking questions of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) and others. We look forward to getting on with it, Mr. Speaker, but I can say that if tonight turns out the way all of the past occasions have gone with members opposite–
An Honourable Member: You haven't even been here.
Mr. McFadyen: I have been reading the transcripts. I have been reading the transcripts, and what a tale they tell. I was in the House on November 30, you may recall. The Member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) may recall November 30, just three months ago, when I put a question to the Premier (Mr. Doer) about what he was advised about Crocus, and the Premier's response was: Any representation to us was that Crocus was strong. That was what the Premier said on the record on November 30.
I noticed the Premier isn't here tonight and that's okay. We certainly won't draw any adverse inferences from the fact that the Premier couldn't be with us here tonight, but we do look forward to getting on with the meeting. We look forward to hearing more procedural delay tactics from members opposite, and, ultimately, we look forward to a full public inquiry where all the facts will be put on the table. We'll put our hands on the Bible and tell the truth. We are prepared to be held accountable. And if apologies are called for at that time, we will certainly be held accountable. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We look forward to the questions.
Mr. Chairperson: Before we proceed, a couple of points. Number 1, I would like to caution all members to pick their words carefully. The term "deceptive" is not parliamentarily accepted here, and I would caution members from using that term. Additionally, please do not make any reference to members who are or are not present at tonight's meeting.
I would ask whether the Auditor General has an opening statement.
Ms. Carol Bellringer (Auditor General of
At the December 6, 2006 Public Accounts Committee meeting, I disclosed at this committee that I was on the board of the Crocus Investment Fund from May 12, 2005 to June 29, 2005. That was subsequent to the audit, subsequent to the former board resigning from the Crocus Investment Fund.
Regarding attendance at the Public Accounts Committee, I'm required by the rules of the committee to attend the committee when requested to do so, and only the Auditor General is named in the rules, not a representative of the office. Previously, I had disclosed to the committee that in the event I was unable to act, the Deputy Auditor General had all of the powers of the Auditor General. At the time, it seemed prudent to merely defer all questions regarding the Crocus Investment Fund audit to the Deputy Auditor General since she could act in my place. It also solved another dilemma, and that was that neither The Auditor General Act nor the rules actually contemplate a situation where there is a new Auditor General, and where there's a new Auditor General who did not author the reports being discussed at the committee. So, at the previous Public Accounts Committee meetings, the Deputy Auditor General had a better understanding of the details of the audit than I did, and so it was also convenient to have her answer your committee's questions.
The Deputy Auditor General is no longer with the office. Several senior staff members who participated on the audit are here today, including Mr. Norm Ricard, on my right, who's the executive director, Strategic Initiatives; Mr. Ron Oswald; Mr. Greg MacBeth; and Ms. Maria Capozzi. With their help, I’ll do the best that I can to answer any of your questions of our Office.
Just one other matter. There was some reference to a document being included in our working papers, and I do have a briefing note that was prepared by Mr. Norm Ricard, the executive director, Strategic Initiatives, in our office, who participated in the audit. He provides me with additional information about the Cabinet submission which he had filed during the Crocus audit, should you wish to receive any further information.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Bellringer. The floor is now open for questions.
I'm sorry, excuse me.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee for Mr. Gerrard to make an opening statement? [Agreed]
Mr. Gerrard: Thank you. The essential question which is posed by the Auditor's report on the Crocus Investment Fund was that there was a huge problem in how this fund was managed and that it went downhill and then crashed in 2004. What is particularly relevant to today is not only the situation of Crocus investors as I travel around the province and hear, for example, of an elderly lady who invested her retirement savings, being patriotic, in the Crocus Investment Fund and now, because of what has happened, has to live essentially in poverty because her retirement savings have vanished and are inaccessible. But the problem that we must face today is also that we have recently acquired information in a Cabinet document from November 27, 2000, which shows very clearly that the government knew in considerable detail that the Crocus Investment Fund was going to be running short of cash in 2002 and 2003, and yet stood by while people continued to invest and lost large amounts of money. So we have some major questions which need to be raised, and those questions, in particular, need to be directed at the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger).
Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, Mr. Gerrard just completed his opening statement.
Mr. McFadyen had his hand up. The floor is open for questions. We are now in the question part of the committee deliberations, and, Mr. McFadyen, you have the floor for the first question.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Chairman, I just want to begin with a couple of questions to the Auditor General or her staff who are present. Going back to the Hansard from the Thursday, December 8, 2005, meeting of the Public Accounts Committee, the former Auditor General, Mr. Singleton, indicated that he cannot be specific as to what Cabinet did or did not know because he didn't interview anybody in Cabinet with respect to Crocus. Ms. Lysyk also indicated that they didn't inquire into correspondence with respect to Cabinet communications in the course of the audit.
My question is whether Auditor staff can just confirm, in fact, that that is correct.
Ms. Bellringer: Yes, those facts are correct, and the briefing note indicates that the documents were obtained through the department.
An Honourable Member: Through the department of?
Mr. Chairperson: Just conclude, please.
Ms. Bellringer: IEDM. So Industry–help me with what it means–Economic Development and Mines.
Mr. McFadyen: Just as a follow-up then, can the Auditor General just confirm that it wasn't within the scope of this audit to examine Cabinet knowledge and Cabinet deliberations with respect to the collapse of the Crocus Fund? That was not part of the scope of this audit.
Ms. Bellringer: It's correct that the scope of the audit didn't extend to specifically seeking out Cabinet documents, but there were certain Cabinet documents included in the department files as in the November 2000 submission, for example.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Chairman, if somebody was looking for a comprehensive understanding of what Cabinet knew and what Cabinet deliberations took place, what Cabinet actions float out of those discussions, would this Auditor General's report provide them with a full and clear picture on all of those sorts of issues?
Point of Order
An Honourable Member: A point of order.
Mr. Chairperson: A point of order, Mr. Swan?
Mr. Swan: Well, the Leader of the Official Opposition, rather than asking the Auditor General what the staff working on the audit or what anybody did find, what they asked for, what they received, what was refused, although we haven't heard anything of that, instead there has been a hypothetical question posed to the Auditor General. If I recall, we dealt with this point two or three meetings ago and, indeed, this committee determined that its practice was that hypothetical questions would not be put to the Auditor General.
* (19:50)
Certainly, the Leader of the Opposition and any other member can ask any questions they want to the Auditor General, and she will consult with her staff about what was seen, what wasn't seen, what was done and what wasn't done, but the intention of this committee is not to allow the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) or anybody else to simply go on a fishing expedition.
Mr. Chairperson: Well, members of the committee, with regard to the issue of hypothetical questions, our rules and the procedural authorities do not offer direct guidance in regard. However, previous committee chairpersons have allowed for those questions to be asked and answered. So I will allow the question, but I would remind the committee, ministers and witnesses that they are not obliged to answer all of those questions.
* * *
Ms. Bellringer: Mr. Chairperson, I'll avoid any comment on what someone might be looking for, only because I don't know what that particular individual might be looking for. But certainly the scope of the audit and the objectives set out in the audit report were not designed to seek out what Cabinet did or did not know.
Mr. Hawranik: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, I have a motion to present to the Public Accounts Committee. I move
THAT the Public Accounts Committee report to the–[interjection]
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Mr. Hawranik has the floor.
Mr. Hawranik: I move
THAT the Public Accounts Committee report to the Legislative Assembly that, in relation to the activities of the Crocus Investment Fund and its consideration of the Auditor General's report on the matter, the committee is of the opinion that it would be in the public interest for the government to call a public inquiry into the matter and recommends to the Premier that he call such an inquiry pursuant to Part 5 of The Manitoba Evidence Act.
Mr. Chairperson: The motion is in order.
Motion presented.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, I don't expect the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) to pay attention, but let me just point this out. In his dialogue, his monologue, his court appearance here earlier, he said: The NDP would use procedural motions; we want to ask questions. The member promptly went and asked one series of questions, and then they put their third motion of the night on the floor. It's now five to eight. We've been here for 55 minutes. One set of questions by the Leader of the Opposition when he made the point during his introduction that they wanted to be here to get answers to questions–by the way, the same question which has been answered in the report over and over again as, in fact, referenced by a document provided by the Auditor General tonight. I want to make that as point 1. Talk about procedural matters, 55 minutes and the members opposite have put three motions on the floor.
Motion and point No. 2, Mr. Chairperson, is we have opportunity to ask questions. The member said, try to ask for a motion for four minutes. The Leader of the Opposition went for eight minutes and then he did his questions. I suggest, and the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Hawranik) has not asked a question. He has put three motions on the floor. I say that the facts of the handling of this committee speak for themselves.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Mr. Chomiak has the floor.
Mr. Chomiak: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Now, we have debated this in the Legislature. The members rang the bells for what was it, 16 days. The members asked hundreds of questions. The Auditor provided a comprehensive 245-page report on this issue. The Leader of the Opposition said, it talks about Cabinet knowledge. I want to quote from something said. Let me quote Stu Murray, former Leader of the Conservative Party, February 15, 2002: We are comfortable with the way that Crocus does their valuations. Yes, we are. The bottom line is we're satisfied with the valuations.
February 14, John Loewen: "We received information this morning that satisfies us that the share price they are selling at today is a fair valuation." In fact, Loewen and Murray went much further than the Crocus prospectus would allow government to go. The Crocus prospectus states that none of the Securities administrators or any other department or agency of government has assessed demerits of an investment in the fund. The Securities administrators and the government have made no recommendation concerning such an investment and assume no liability or obligation to any investor of the fund.
Wellington West, the prospectus people, your friends, made that statement. John Loewen made that statement. Stu Murray made that statement.
We're before this committee. We're saying ask the questions. The minister is here ready to give the answers again and again, and we'll do it again and again. We have the responsibility to provide those answers. We've provided them. The Auditor is here. We're here tonight. We came before this committee for the seventh or eighth time on the same issue to a report that's several years old, Mr. Chairperson, on an issue that there are matters concerning that we want to get to the bottom of. Let's deal with matters of the province. Let the Crocus matters be sorted out. We have the answers in front of us in the Auditor's report. We have the Auditor here. We have the Minister of Finance here. Let's go to questions and answers and stop playing the procedural games that the member himself said in his opening statement ought not to happen. Thank you.
Mr. Selinger: Yes, I've been patiently waiting for my first question. I note members opposite have said they wanted to get to the answers as quickly as possible in their opening statement, and they haven't actually asked a question yet to myself.
Now the member opposite makes the claim that we need a public inquiry to get to the bottom of the story, but they refuse to acknowledge the fact that The Auditor General Act was changed in 2001 to give specific powers to that office to be able to investigate labour-sponsored venture capital. That has resulted in a report that it's not clear that the members have actually read it yet. It's a report that's well over 200 pages. I think it runs to 245 pages, with a number of recommendations that have been put in place there. That allowed the public interest to be served more efficiently by using the skilled resources of the Auditor General's office to get into the fund and investigate any issues related to counting value for money procedures and all the matters that they deal with in their report.
* (20:00)
So that allowed a more efficient mechanism to get there with recommendations which have in turn been followed up on by an implementation committee that was co-chaired by an outside citizen with senior accounting experience in the province with a number of recommendations, which have in turn been brought forward as two pieces of legislation, which have been passed in the Legislature. All those recommendations that have been made have been followed up on in the Auditor General's report. So the idea that we need the public inquiry at this stage, after all this work has been done, is really a make-work project by the members of the opposition for their lawyer friends. What they want to do is spend more taxpayers' money.
The interesting thing about a public inquiry is could it provide any compensation or remedy for the shareholders? The answer is no. It could only make recommendations. What could provide a remedy or compensation to the shareholders? That's the class action legislation that we have put in place in this province, legislation the members opposite never had the courage to put in front of the Legislature when they were the government, and that class action legislation is very constructive in this sense. It automatically includes all the shareholders in any action that is taken in the courts and brings them into the suit. In addition, the judge can supervise the costs of the lawyers to make sure that the shareholders do not have an excessive bill imposed upon them by the people defending them. So the class action legislation is a better remedy than a public inquiry because it allows for compensation or damages to be awarded in the courts, which a public inquiry couldn't do.
So the call for a public inquiry is redundant to the powers that we've given to The Auditor General's Act, and it is less effective than the class action legislation that we have put in place which shareholders are now taking advantage of. So it's very clear that the members opposite really only want a public inquiry for the political theatrics they think they can extract from it and the job creation that they can create for their friends in the legal profession.
With that, I recommend we vote the motion down.
Mr. Swan: Mr. Chair, I
think we need to take a step back and really gain some perspective on
independent offices of this Legislature and what they mean. The Auditor
General's office is one of a select group of offices that we trust to perform
very important tasks for this Legislature and, more importantly, for the people
of
In addition to the Auditor General's office, of course there's the Ombudsman, there's the Children's Advocate, there's Elections Manitoba, all of whom don't report to the party in power. They report to this Legislature and to every member of this Legislature.
We talk about the Auditor General but it's not just the person. It's not just the current Auditor General who holds that chair. It's really the office of the Auditor General, being an organization which is entitled, pursuant to legislation, to go and do such investigations, such audits, such work as that office believes is necessary to fulfil their duties.
As the Minister of Finance has indicated, in 2001 this government decided it was appropriate to greatly expand the ability of the Auditor General to go ahead and investigate anything that they deemed appropriate. Those matters are within the discretion of the Auditor General's office. The Auditor General is appointed by a committee composed of members from all political parties in this Legislature. I was very pleased to be involved in the process that got the current Auditor General before us, but it's bigger than that.
In 2001 that act was changed to allow the Auditor General more discretion to "follow the money," to use that term, to go and pursue any investigations. The government does not direct the Auditor General's hand in terms of what they should look at, where they should go, where they should stop.
It's very interesting, of course, that the one or two questions that the Leader of the Opposition asked, he didn't put to the Auditor General so she could confer with her staff to ask whether the government prevented anything from being provided. Indeed, everything we've heard before this committee from the start is that the government provided everything requested by the Auditor General, that this government co-operated with any request of the Auditor General, provided access to any documents the Auditor General requested and did not obstruct in any way the work of this independent office.
I recognize now that this may be inconvenient for the members across the way. Perhaps they haven't read the 245 pages of the report. Perhaps they haven't been listening to hear the great steps the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry and their departments have taken to do the best to comply with the recommendations set out in this report. But what's very important to remember is that the Auditor General's office has had complete freedom to pursue this investigation as they saw fit. Neither side, not the government side nor the opposition parties, should really question the effort that has been made by the Auditor General's office to get to the bottom of this.
It would be very different, frankly, Mr. Chair, if the Auditor General came back and said that there had been something withheld, that there had been a Cabinet minister refusing to co-operate. It would be very different if that were the case, but, in fact, that is not what has happened. We've had a very complete, a very full report. We've had a very full and complete effort to comply with what the Auditor General has recommended. I'm hoping we can get to some questions on that issue. If the opposition stops raising motions, perhaps we can get there.
It is disappointing, Mr. Chair, that, by taking this approach–and certainly what we've heard over the past few weeks is that really the opposition parties have stepped over the line. It is a great concern that, rather than come to this committee tonight, ask appropriate questions of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) and get on with any other investigations they want, they've effectively stepped into criticizing an independent officer of this Legislature and, instead of asking questions and getting moving, have chosen, once again, to tie this committee in more procedures and more difficulties. Certainly, we're still waiting for the apology that has been urged upon the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Conservative Party. If they choose not to do that, that's fine, but let's get on with the questions. Let's get on with the realities here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Gerrard: What's very clear from what we already know from the Public Accounts Committee tonight is that the Auditor General's review did not deal with Cabinet issues and policy issues, and as a result of that and as a result of the many Manitobans who are asking questions because of the disclosure of the Cabinet submission, which shows very clearly that the Cabinet knew that the Crocus Investment Fund was heading downhill, that people who were investing after November 2000 were investing in a sinking ship, it is very clear that the only way we're going to get to the bottom of this fully is with a public inquiry. Therefore, I think it is imperative if we're going to answer the questions that Manitobans are asking, and that is: Why on earth would this government not disclose that this fund was heading downhill? Why would it continue to promote a fund which was going downhill and mislead investors so that they would lose a lot of money?
What's clear is we need a public inquiry to get to the bottom of this. We've got more questions we want to ask today, but let's support this resolution. I support this resolution. Let's get a public inquiry.
Mr. McFadyen: We know very clearly now from the leaked Cabinet document of November 2000 that the Minister of Finance–
An Honourable Member: Sitting in the files.
An Honourable Member: Sitting in the hands of the Auditor General?
Mr. McFadyen: Well, all of the media said it was leaked, so you're saying they're wrong? Okay.
In any event, the Minister of Finance knew in November of 2000 two important things. One is that Crocus was running into liquidity problems, and the second is that Crocus was not doing what its prospectus said it would do. These are both serious issues that the Minister of Finance brought to Cabinet. Until such time as the document entered the public domain at the end of last week, Manitobans, certainly members opposite, and I would presume backbench MLAs for the New Democratic Party, were unaware of the level of knowledge and involvement of this Finance Minister, the Premier, and their Cabinet colleagues, going all the way back to November of 2000, four years before the fund collapsed, as to the pending problems.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the Auditor General has just confirmed that the Auditor General's report did not go into the issue of Cabinet knowledge, Cabinet deliberations and action. That is something that we knew from reading the report and is certainly consistent with everything that the previous Auditor General and the Deputy Auditor General had put on the record previously.
So we have a gaping gap in knowledge in terms of what happened within government, in terms of what happened with the government at the Cabinet level. The people who were directing the activities of the civil servants, some of whom served on the board of Crocus, the people who were directing and receiving reports in terms of the activities and knowledge of those board members that they were in contact with, such as Mr. Curtis, who was a financial adviser to the Finance Minister all the while he was a member of the Crocus board. So we know that we have a significant gap in knowledge and what's been disclosed publicly.
* (20:10)
Now this Cabinet document sheds some light on what government knew, and the reason for all the controversy over the last number of days since this document came to light is that this is the first time we had clear and unequivocal confirmation that Cabinet was involved and knew what was going on at Crocus, Mr. Chairperson.
We've had answers to questions in the Legislature like the one given by the Premier (Mr. Doer) on November 30, 2006, where he said and I quote: Any representation to us purported that it, Crocus, was strong, end of quote. This is what the Premier said three months ago on November 30, 2006. That obviously has been demonstrated to have been a false statement, Mr. Chairman. So we now know that, when the Premier has responded to questions on Crocus, he has put false statements on the record.
We now know, we've been able to witness the Maxwell Smart routine of the Finance Minister and his stand-up comedy act that he's been so good at engaging in every time he's been asked questions in the Legislature on the issue. All of these things together, Mr. Chairman, cry out for a public inquiry so that we can get straight answers, so that we can get beyond the Maxwell Smart routine, so that we can get beyond the statements from the Premier that he didn't know anything about problems at Crocus, that everybody told him that it was strong. We know the Auditor General didn't look into the issue of Cabinet knowledge.
Let's talk about the issue of a lawsuit versus a public inquiry. We know from past experience that a public inquiry can be up and down within six months with a report on the issues that matter. It can be even faster if the government co-operates, if they don't need to have answers and documents dragged out of them with every procedural trick that they decide to employ. So, if government co-operates, if we set up a commission of inquiry, we can get all the answers we need. We can open up the Cabinet files. We can get to the bottom of what Cabinet knew and what they did or didn't do in response to the information they were provided.
So we have, Mr. Chairman, the need for an inquiry to bring speedy resolution to this issue. We know that class action lawsuits often last up to six, seven or eight years. This lawsuit has now been underway. The government was added as a party in May of 2006. They're at very preliminary stages in terms of the court proceedings. They're certainly at this stage dealing only with preliminary matters such as the certification of the class, and so we know that this lawsuit will drag out for years. As long as the lawsuit is outstanding, as long as Crocus shareholders have not received justice in a fair hearing, the black cloud over our capital markets will be with us. We have the threat now of a lawsuit with interest running in the tens of thousands of dollars a day on the $150-million claim that relates to compensatory damages, so we have urgency here.
The way to deal with the urgency of the issue is set up an inquiry today. Be forthcoming with what you know, get a response from the commissioner of inquiry, so that we know what all the facts are and then for the government to do what's right, to do justice to shareholders, to protect taxpayers against the $200-million lawsuit which is entirely unnecessary and could have been avoided if the government had chosen to be forthcoming.
Now the Minister of Finance talks about his 2001 amendments to The Auditor General Act about the way he deserves, I think he thinks he deserves a medal because he opened up Crocus to inquiry and review by the provincial auditor. But what he doesn't mention, what he leaves out is the fact that there was another little amendment that the Finance Minister brought in six months after the Cabinet discussion and that amendment added section 18(3) of the current provincial auditor's act which provides that the Auditor General shall not have access to Cabinet documents without the permission of Cabinet. That is a new provision introduced six months after the Cabinet discussion by this Minister of Finance in June of 2001. So he opened up Crocus, he closed off Cabinet. That is what he did with his amendment in June of 2001. So, while he wants to sit there and take credit for opening up Crocus to an audit, why not take the blame for shutting down access to Cabinet without Cabinet's permission?
So, Mr. Chairman, this speaks to the need for a public inquiry. We know we've got a government that will put up every wall it possibly can to prevent Manitobans from getting at the truth. Manitobans deserve the truth. Let's support this motion. Thank you.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairman, I'm very troubled by the approach that the opposition is taking in regard to this motion that's before us because the clear implication of their motion is that they do not have confidence in the Auditor General. This, I think, is given substance by a transcript from CKSB on February 28, in which the Leader of the Opposition indicates that he has no confidence in the Auditor General and I think that's a shame. What he actually said was, and I will quote his words, Mr. Chairperson: "Now it turns out that the auditor's office was in on the secret after they received the document."
What a thing to say about an Auditor General that we have just said thank-you to and a new Auditor General to which we have provided a rather strange and a rocky welcome.
Mr. Chairperson, the whole notion that somehow a class action lawsuit actually has the power to actually deal with what the shareholders lost, they actually have the power to apportion damages, that the Securities Commission who, under their act, have far-reaching powers to act, to take appropriate action against those people who may or may not have made incorrect statements, for example, Wellington West, in regard to the prospectus. There is appropriate power in the hands of the civil courts because we strengthened that legislation.
There is appropriate power in the hands of the Manitoba Securities Commission which has wide, wide-ranging powers, and the member opposite is a lawyer. He knows that. So where is the most appropriate place for action to take place? Action, not words, not trying to sort of cloud the issue, but where can shareholders actually get relief? They can get relief at a class action suit. Where can appropriate discipline come to the industry that may have some culpability and responsibility or may not? I don't know because the Securities Commission hasn't yet adjudicated that. That's where the power actually is to actually deal with the issues that you seem so anxious to raise.
A public inquiry can make recommendations, and that's the end of it. During that public inquiry, Mr. Chairperson, what's going to happen? We're going to spend an enormous amount of money on lawyers representing every side of this issue defending or prosecuting every side of the issue.
Mr. Chairperson: