Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of Executive Council. Does the honourable First Minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Chair, I have copies of my opening statement, and I will just pass them out. There are about a half a dozen for any members who might want to follow along.

Mr. Chair, I want to begin by just saying thank you to all members of the House and thank particularly members of the opposition for their courtesy in ensuring that the business of the House is able to proceed today. Given the inclement weather and the difficulties caused by the storm, we recognize that a number of members on both sides of the House were unable to be here. I appreciate the desire on the part of everyone to get on with the business of the Legislature and to ensure that we had the opportunity to begin the debate on Estimates and all the various parts of the business of the Legislature, and I appreciate the rather significant and impressive showing, given the significant disruption that has taken place across the province.

I want to begin by congratulating you, Mr. Chair, as you resume your responsibilities as Chair of this committee. I know that you will fulfill them with the same distinction you always have.

Since this marks the start of the debate on the Main Estimates, I also want to recognize the many hours of work which went into their preparation by members of the Treasury Board, under the able leadership of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), as well as by the Treasury Board staff, my other cabinet colleagues and the many departmental staff involved in the process.

The 1997-98 Estimates for Executive Council are identical in total to last year's vote, that is, $3,168,100.

The only differences within the individual appropriations are the salary items under 1.(a) and 1.(b)(1), which are balanced off by corresponding reductions in Other Expenditures under item 1.(b)(2).

The staff year complement in Executive Council, at 44, is also exactly the same as it was last year.

I should add that the staff working on the Service First Initiatives, including Better Methods and Better Systems, also report to the Clerk of the Executive Council. Their activities are funded through the Internal Reform enabling appropriation.

Similarly, the French Language Services Secretariat continues to have a reporting relationship through the clerk. Their funding is provided through the Department of Health, whose minister has responsibility for French Language Services.

In recent years, we have taken the opportunity provided by the discussion on Executive Council Estimates to go over a wide range of topics, including Manitoba's relations with other governments, both in Canada and elsewhere. I believe it is appropriate to do so once again.

This year's Speech from the Throne pointed out that when the federal government and the provinces have been able to work together as partners in recent years, the results have been extremely positive. The Team Canada missions to Asia and the national infrastructure program are both examples of what positive partnership can achieve.

Another example is the joint work now underway on a national child benefit.

Although the federal government is sometimes assumed to have initiated these joint efforts, the reality is that their origins can be traced to proposals made by the provincial governments. For example, in the case of the infrastructure program, the provinces for a number of years prior to its inception called on Ottawa for such a program and now actually manage the program and, along with other partners such as municipalities, are paying two-thirds of the costs. So the leadership and the responsibilities for these important initiatives are shared, and the benefits are real.

The throne speech also made reference to what happens when the partnership approach has not been followed by the Government of Canada. Unfortunately, there have been plenty of examples of federal unilateralism, and we are all aware of the massive cuts in transfers for social programs.

I hope the lessons of the past few years, that partnership works, will not be lost on this federal government, if it is returned to office, or on its successor. It is difficult to understand why, when it has seen how the partnership approach has worked so well under the national infrastructure program, the federal government would turn around and ignore it in other program areas such as determining project priorities under the Western Grain Transportation Adjustment Fund.

Of course, we have heard it said that there are different visions within the federal government about its role relative to the provinces. Some federal ministers are said to believe in partnership and others in old-style unilateralism. The obvious problem is that when both approaches are applied at the same time, it can be very difficult for provinces to work with the federal government in a spirit of full trust, co-operation and good will. So, as I said, I hope some lessons will be learned from the experience of the past few years, and that we will see the federal government recognizing increasingly the real benefits of genuine partnership with the provinces. That is a message which the Western Premiers have been sending to Ottawa for years. It has also been endorsed regularly at the Annual Premiers' Conferences.

Members may be interested to know that this year's Western Premiers' Conference will be held at the end of May in British Columbia. The agenda has not been finalized as yet, but it is expected to focus on economic and social policy issues and on efforts to extend practical co-operation among the western provinces. This year's Annual Premiers' Conference will be held in New Brunswick in August. It will be an important meeting for sustaining progress in our efforts to achieve some needed rebalancing and the roles and responsibilities of federal and provincial governments.

On the international front, we are delighted that the federal government remains committed to the Team Canada approach to trade and investment promotion. That same approach is being applied throughout 1997 as Canada serves as host of the Asia-Pacific Leaders' Summit and a number of preparatory and related activities. For Manitoba the opportunities presented by the Pan American Games are growing as increasingly Canada focuses on improved trade with Central and South America. We are working with our Pan Am partners to ensure that our province derives the maximum benefits from these initiatives. My colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) will be in Mexico next week to continue trade development work there.

We are also looking toward new opportunities in Europe and South Africa. Only a few weeks ago a Manitoba trade mission visited our South African partner, the North West Province, and I understand the results were quite promising. We are proud of the fact that we were the first Canadian province to sign a formal co-operation agreement with our sister province and to build a trade development component into our relationship. Our governance agreement is also working well with the welcome assistance of CIDA and the International Development Research Centre. In fact, a small delegation of Manitoba officials were in South Africa in March to provide specific advice in the areas of agriculture, tourism and financial and general administration. Later this week a delegation of senior intergovernmental relations officials from South Africa will be in Manitoba to meet with several of the staff in our system who deal with the Canadian federal government on a regular basis. We are gratified to be able to contribute through these contacts to the strengthening of democracy in the new South Africa.

I want to conclude my introduction by acknowledging once again the very hard work of the staff in Executive Council. They are relatively few in numbers, but they make up for that in dedication, skill and, at times, very long hours. Their efforts are much appreciated. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

* (1440)

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the First Minister for his opening comments. Does the Leader of the official opposition have an opening statement?

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and just a few comments before we get into the specifics of the Estimates. We were quite concerned, and the Premier may have noted that in our questions today, about the kind of cynical nature that this government is operating in and the kind of heartless attitude it has had over the number of years and the consequences of what is happening in our province. Today again I was citing reports, and we have cited them time and time and time again, where there is a pending crisis in our communities.

Young people feel they have no hope, no opportunity, and we get just a few words in a Speech from the Throne because the government is worried about its heartless reputation or image. We get cynical responses, a few new secretariat announcements here and there, but cynical in the sense that the spin is the most important part of the government as opposed to the substance.

I know that it is naive to think that communication is not important for any government or any political party, but there is so little, there is so much lacking in terms of substance with this government when they put words in the Speech from the Throne on child poverty or children. They put words in the Speech from the Throne on First Nations people and aboriginal people that I just cannot basically fathom this anymore from this government and this Premier.

Day after day after day they reduce the opportunities for kids, for First Nations people. They have systematically hurt the most vulnerable people in our society. We get report after report after report from groups of people outside of government, and even when we get reports from government people inside government in the youth secretariat, they are lost on deaf ears with this government and this Premier. In fact, people tell us they have quit in despair about what is not going on in this government, that unless the Premier engages in the project, unless he takes some leadership, the proposals and the ideas will go nowhere.

Today in Question Period--this is not the first time we have raised this. Manitoba clearly leads the nation for the highest rate of violent youth crime. We can no longer ignore the problem. It is crucial to Manitobans that we work together, but there is huge fragmentation and miscommunication between the government departments, so who is responsible? It is the member for Tuxedo, the member opposite that is responsible for the lack of leadership, the lack of co-ordination, the lack of substance, the lack of any hope and opportunity for people that are feeling the most pain in our society.

And so we will not just sit idly by when there are a couple of little sentences, token sentences, in a Speech from the Throne, with no action or the opposite action that has taken place in the last number of years. We believe the Premier should be held accountable for it, and we believe the Premier also has to be held accountable for some of the more cynical actions we are seeing inside his own government operation.

I am not talking about the long-term, meritorious public employees that work in the Premier's Office. I am talking about the fixers and spinners and other people in his office that are using taxpayers' money to get out the Tory message and the Tory communications strategy. We are not going to take that as a given in our society in terms of the morality that a government and a Premier must bring to the efforts of its office. Whether it is phoning our offices inside the government building or writing letters to the editor, et cetera, I think this Premier has got to start taking some leadership.

It is kind of interesting, the new Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman) took a stand, I thought, of leadership on morality and ethics. I think it is time this Premier started doing the same thing in his own operation instead of just saying, well, it is not on their time, et cetera.

So there will be parts of the Premier's Estimates that we will--the long-term, meritorious people that work on behalf of all of Manitobans that we respect and I will give credit to. I have given credit to them in the past. But other kinds of standards that I see in the Premier's Office I think are rotten and I think require leadership, requires integrity, requires ethics and requires action which I do not see taking place, regrettably, from our Premier.

I will be dealing with other specific issues as we go through the Estimates of the Premier. Why are we agreeing to a three-year devolution agreement in human resources? When we complain about offloading of the federal government, why are we agreeing to the kind of devolution agreement that we see in New Brunswick and Alberta rather than a more sensible longer term approach.

The Premier has mentioned the national infrastructure program and the child benefit program. The combination of government action with the most vulnerable children is scandalous. The federal cuts have trickled down to the provinces. The provincial cuts have trickled down to the municipalities. The municipal cuts have trickled down to children. I have mentioned this before, babies getting 24 percent less food allowance as a result of, quote, Team Canada. In terms of child benefits, I think this is absolutely cynical.

I think the idea of the Romanow government, the initiation of doing something on child benefits, I give credit to, but you cannot sing the hallelujah chorus to child benefit proposals when you have systematically cut babies by 24 percent, while you have cut public education by $43 million, while you have cut evaluation programs for our kids who need it at the earliest preschool ages, while you have cut child care programs. You increased the fees and then decreased the enrollment and then decreased the funding. It is cute in terms of being sneaky, but the results mean that fewer people have opportunities. You have cut Access; you have cut New Careers; you have cut Student Social Allowances; you have cut the Indian and Metis Friendship Centres; you have cut programs that have made a difference.

We are starting to pay the price now. This is a government that does not believe in prevention. This is a government that does not believe in working in the community. This is a government, quite frankly, that is out of touch with what is going on in the community. When we asked about hungry kids to the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) just recently and nutrition programs, she said that the model we should follow is the Fort Garry School Division model, where you import immigrants at $20,000 a year to deal with the hungry kids in your school division. Why did we not see the Premier (Mr. Filmon) stand up and say that is not our view.

I listened, I read Hansard, and--[interjection] Perhaps the minister would like to discuss this with the Leader of the government, the Premier. I am sure she has. I am sure the Premier, if he was concerned about children, would have discussed this with the minister--[interjection] I beg your pardon?

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable Leader of the official opposition to put his remarks through the Chair. It will avoid the unnecessary debate that might happen otherwise.

The honourable Leader of the official opposition, to carry on.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairman, I assumed if you did not call the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) to order, that she was rising on a point of order, and I was trying to hear whether she had, which obviously she had not, so I guess, I hope that she will follow our rules.

We have a number of other questions on First Nations people. We have had these debates before, and we will have them later on in Estimates. I am concerned that the minister again today did not mention the whole issue of flooding and municipal costs. I am sure this is an area where we are on the same page in terms of the offloading of responsibilities onto municipalities by the federal government two years ago. I will be asking the Premier (Mr. Filmon) whether he did raise this in the many hours he was travelling with the Prime Minister and what the response was from the Prime Minister. It is an area, I know, of concern before the massive snowstorm this weekend, and I know it will be an even greater concern following the storm.

* (1450)

I, again, believe that the Premier has mentioned the whole issue of other federal-provincial programs. The whole area of immigration and settlement responsibilities, I will want to ask the Premier about that again. It is not in the communique from the Premier in terms of a federal-provincial issue of concern. The Premier mentioned the whole infrastructure proposal and the ability to move on a transition strategy from the former transportation system. I still think the Premier's position of sitting on the fence on the Wheat Board is not a position that is in the best interest of Manitobans. Not taking a strong position on the two Alberta court cases and kind of trying to say we are in the middle of single-desk selling versus dual marketing to us is a feeble response.

I think if you are in favour of dual marketing, you should say it. If you are in favour of the single desk, you should say it. We are proud to say what we are in favour of, and we are not just talking about improving the Wheat Board governance body which all of us are in favour of, greater farmer control; but the Wheat Board, I notice the Premier likes to be there for the announcement of sales in his Team Canada tour. I thought it was kind of ironic. I guess that was the day after the federal government had allegedly screwed up on the presentation of the food fare in Asia that we stood by the Canadian Wheat Board with a major contract that was signed. We think that there are lots of jobs and lots of producers that still support the single-desk selling of the Wheat Board.

There are other economic issues that I think this Premier has had great responsibility on--Repap, Bristol, Eaton's and others--that we will be asking on later on. Suffice to say the area of the greatest priority for us in these sets of Estimates with the Premier is what we perceive to be the lack of leadership when issues of integrity in his office have been raised and we feel have not been dealt with. Thank you.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, I am going to ask for leave, if I can give opening remarks for four or five minutes.

Mr. Chairperson: Does the honourable member for Inkster have leave to make opening remarks? [agreed] The honourable member for Inkster, with his opening remarks.

Mr. Lamoureux: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I appreciate the opportunity to add a few words from our party's perspective. In listening to the Premier's comments, I picked out a few points on which I would like to be able to comment on. I see some value when the Premier talked about global markets. No doubt as we move more towards a global economy, the role of the government in the future is going to be more and more on trying to ensure that Manitoba is making those inroads into the many different economies throughout the world. We acknowledge the need to be aggressive in trying to secure those markets on behalf of Manitoba companies and so forth.

The Premier spent some time on federal-provincial relations. No doubt as we go into the Estimates, the relations between the feds and the province will come up time and time again. It virtually comes up every Question Period. We have seen some positive things as has been pointed out, whether it has been the infrastructure, there is the leader of the Democratic Party talked about the immigration. We had a wonderful bilateral agreement signed by this government and government in Ottawa, the infrastructure is indicated.

Mr. Chairperson, there are some other issues that are out there, the GST versus PST. I look forward to getting into somewhat of a discussion with the Premier with respect to that. The whole area of federal versus provincial relations and how the governments get along is a very interesting one, to say the least. I look forward to having some dialogue in terms of some of the power struggles between the two constitutional discussions that could come as early as August as we try to redefine or better define in terms of the federal state that we live in.

Also, Mr. Chairperson, where I think the Premier was a bit off, he is not talking about some of those local issues. The job markets, jobs are a major issue. We looked at Molson's and other companies that are closing shops. I am interested in knowing what it is the Premier did. Did the Premier do anything? What sort of representation? The Leader of the New Democratic Party brought up Bristol Aerospace. Today Manitoba has, I believe, it is somewhere around 9 percent, and I will get the actual percentage, of the aerospace industry located in the province of Manitoba. It seems what we want to be able to do is protect those jobs as much as possible. I look at Bristol and compare it to de Havilland in Ontario. Governments assisted, got involved, and ultimately I believe saved de Havilland. We need the Premier of this province to be involved in certain sectors, where ultimately we believe that the government can buy its involvement, can in fact make a difference.

The Leader of the New Democratic Party made reference to crime. That is a very serious issue. I have been surveying my constituents of late. I can assure you that the perception of the amount of violent crime in the city of Winnipeg has been increasing, and it has been increasing dramatically. Whether it is real or not, the perception is that the violent crime is going up. It saddened me greatly to hear of the case over the weekend, as I am sure it did for all members, where you get a group of young adults beating to death another member of a gang. Whether the person is a member of a gang or not, it is just revolting to see that sort of barbaric actions being taken against a fellow human being.

Health care is again and always will be a major issue inside this Chamber. I am very sensitive in terms of the amounts of cuts that have been coming down from Ottawa. At the same time, I am pleased with the commitment, of the long-term commitment, to fund health care from Ottawa, because that has been guaranteed, Mr. Chairperson. That was not there before.

We want to be able to talk a little bit about the education and the funding of education and where the Premier (Mr. Filmon) sees the funding of education, because we have seen that growing reliance on property tax over the last 10-plus years.

With those few words, Mr. Chairperson, I am done with my opening remarks.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chair, I will, just in response briefly to comments that have been made by the members opposite, say that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) used the terms "cynical" and "heartless," and I think that there has been in the last few decades of this province's history nothing more heartless than the actions of the Pawley government, of which the member for Concordia was a part, was a cabinet minister in fact, nothing more heartless than their actions when they ran interest costs up from--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I interrupt the honourable First Minister for just a minute. This is not a time for rebuttal at this time. Is there leave for the honourable First Minister--

Mr. Filmon: No, I will open up the next segment with my comments then.

Mr. Chairperson: I appreciate that.

At this time, I would remind all honourable members of the committee that debate on the Minister's Salary, item 1.(a), is deferred until all other items in the Estimates of the department are passed. At this time we invite the minister's staff to take their place in the Chamber.

Is the First Minister prepared to introduce his staff members present to the committee at this time?

* (1500)

Mr. Filmon: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. For member's opposite, I am sure that they know my senior staff, who have not changed since last year, but we have to my left the Clerk of the Executive Council, Don Leitch; next to him, we have Karen Popp, who is the Admin and Finance Officer for Executive Council; we have to my right my Chief of Staff, Taras Sokolyk; and next to him the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Jim Eldridge.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister.

The item before the committee is item 1. General Administration (b) Management and Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Doer: I wonder if the Premier can give us a breakdown of who is in that line and what the salaries are, please.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chair, I think that perhaps the easiest thing to do would be to hand out copies of the listing as we have always done in the past. It gives the entire listing of staff in Executive Council, including those in the intergovernmental office. So these are all the ones that are covered in that line, I believe.

Mr. Doer: I am just wondering, in terms of the major staff representatives under 1.(b)(1), I would like to just ask a few questions about salary increases over the last couple of years. Can the Premier indicate the Clerk of Executive Council, this is the '97 salary--there will be no obvious adjustment April 1, notwithstanding MLAs' salaries on these Estimates. Can the Premier indicate the salary increases in the last two fiscal years, that would be '95-96, '96-97?

Mr. Filmon: May I clarify. Is the member asking specifically about the Clerk of the Executive Council?

Mr. Doer: Yes.

Mr. Filmon: Yes, he has received no increases in the last two years. He is at the maximum of his range, and he is subject, of course, to the reduced work week as everyone else is.

Mr. Doer: Thank you for that information. Can the Premier indicate in the same two fiscal years the director of Cabinet Communications?

Mr. Filmon: The director of Cabinet Communications, not being at the maximum of her range, has received the standard merit increment in each of the previous years.

Mr. Doer: The Chief of Staff, salary increases for the same two fiscal years, please.

Mr. Filmon: The Chief of Staff received a reclassification in the spring of 1995 and merit increments in each of the previous two fiscal years.

Mr. Doer: We had a salary level for the Chief of Staff quite a bit lower than what is recorded here. Can the Premier please indicate the reclassification for the Chief of Staff? You will be aware that not all salaries are available from the executive level in the same way they used to be where they were Order-in-Councils, et cetera, the O/Cs. So I just want to know, given that we are dealing with the senior staff of the Premier, whether the same belt tightening is still taking place with all people equally.

Mr. Filmon: My recollection is that the Chief of Staff took the place of what was then known as principal secretary. We did not change the title to principal secretary, but he was given the same level of classification as the principal secretary had previously been to the office, so that was the adjustment that took place. Essentially, he has assumed all of the responsibilities that formerly were taken by the principal secretary. I do not have in front of me what the salary level was two years ago. That would be available in, I guess, Public Accounts.

Mr. Doer: I believe the last amount of money we had is $86,920. I will double check the fiscal year of that. It would appear that that would be a $6,000-increase. Notwithstanding an increment, that would look like a fairly substantial increase. Can the Premier please indicate what the reclassification percentage was, please?

Mr. Filmon: We have a basic rule of thumb that says that in these reclassifications, we do not move them up any more than one increment. So it is possible that there is one additional increment contained within that gap that is referred to.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairman, there has been some controversy and public attention to letters that have been drafted by caucus staff and sent out under the signature of other individuals in the public. Who in the Premier's Office is responsible for the caucus staff? Would it be the Clerk of cabinet, the deputy minister of intergovernmental affairs or would it be the Chief of Staff of the Premier?

Mr. Filmon: None of those. Caucus staff reports to the chairman of caucus through their administrative structure.

Mr. Doer: We have been informed by a number of people that caucus staff have considerable direction from the Chief of Staff of the Premier's Office. Does the Chief of Staff of the Premier's Office have some communication function with the caucus staff who are drafting these letters?

Mr. Filmon: No, Mr. Chair.

* (1510)

Mr. Doer: Well, people in the Premier's caucus have been telling us that the Chief of Staff has a fair degree of power and influence over all the political affairs of the government including the caucus staff, the people on the Conservative side who have been telling this to us. Who should we believe, the members of the Premier's caucus or should we believe the Premier today?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chair, I do not think that anything I could say would persuade the Leader of the Opposition. He will believe what he wants to believe, but I have told him the facts.

Mr. Doer: Does the Premier have any problems with the integrity of people who write letters, draft letters to the editor and have other people go out and sign them on behalf of the government's "communication message"?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chair, I think I have responded to that issue publicly, and I think we have established that that is not under the responsibility of my staff.

Mr. Doer: Well, the Premier is right. We will believe whom we want to believe and we have seen a pattern. Who was responsible a couple of years ago when the Premier's communication staff were phoning open-line radio shows and claiming to be certain citizens and constituents on government time on government payroll? Who was responsible for that kind of what we would call political trick campaign out of the Premier's communication staff?

Mr. Filmon: I think, Mr. Chair, that that matter again was well discussed and debated publicly, and the individuals involved indicated that they had made an error in judgment and were, in fact, disciplined on the issue.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the specific discipline was, but I know they were all working the next day after the controversy happened. In fact, some of them have even been hired to work in subsidiaries now of government that have major government contracts, that first of all--[interjection]--SmartHealth and other organizations in particular, so I would like to know what discipline did take place, and is this the kind of cultural integrity that we have in the Premier's Office?

Mr. Filmon: As is often the case with individuals who do things as a result of a lapse in judgment, they are given a warning, a written warning indicating that that is not acceptable, and that happens, I think, in most organizations. People do not get their heads chopped off for one offence.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairperson, do they get their heads chopped off if they deny the--when confronted with the truth, do they get their heads chopped off if they deny the fact that they are in fact working out of the Premier's Office until two or three days later in the controversy and it is proven otherwise?

Mr. Filmon: Again, that matter was well canvassed publicly. It is two--or how many years old? It was 1993, I think, the fall of 1993, and as I say, that matter, after having been brought to the attention of people responsible, resulted in disciplinary action. That matter has, I think, been well discussed.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairman, and we note that the letter-writing campaign that was exposed in the media, does the Premier feel it is wrong for his government to be writing letters to the editor just for the mere function of other citizens, then signing them? Does he feel that is a correct way to act? Is that the kind of integrity and open government he wants to be in charge of, a government that writes phoney letters to the editor for other people's signatures, paid for presumably by taxpayers' money? Is that the kind of operation that he feels proud about, or what kind of action has he taken on this kind of exposé of the integrity of the Premier's Office?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chair, I think we have established, as I indicated before, that that was not done by the Premier's Office. It was not done by staff that are covered in these Estimates, and I think it was also established publicly that they were acting on their own time and so it was not paid for by the taxpayer.

Mr. Doer: The Premier would be aware of a letter signed by one Alan Richer appearing in the Free Press in 1995, complaining about the slanted news coverage. The name Alan Richer is totally fictitious. No such person exists at the given address. Has the Premier investigated that matter, and what action has he taken?

Mr. Filmon: Again, Mr. Chair, I indicated that that letter did not originate from my office, has not in any way been worked on by my staff and so is not the subject of this Estimates discussion.

Mr. Doer: Well, with the greatest of respect to the Premier, we have been told by a number of his caucus people that his Chief of Staff basically co-ordinates the communication political message of the government through the Premier. Now, we know this Premier is not one of these--he cannot claim to us, he may try to claim in these Estimates he is one of these hands-off people in terms of his "communication" message. A cabinet minister cannot even go out in the hallway without being told by one of the Premier's handlers and spin people what to say and how to say it.

We have been told that ministers cannot even talk to the press without getting the kind of marching orders from this Premier. So when we hear from caucus members of the Premier that the Chief of Staff of his office is the person in charge of this kind of political message from the Tory government, who are we to believe? The Tory caucus members, who are quite concerned about this ethical lapse from the Premier and his staff, or the Premier, who says, I know nothing, I did nothing, I see nothing, I hear no evil, I see no evil, I speak no evil.

We know the Premier operates in a different style. We know and he will acknowledge that his office controls the message of all the cabinet ministers and controls the kind of communication message that takes place. We know he is a highly centralized, controlling person, so it makes sense to us that the message we are getting from members opposite about the chief political operator in the Premier's Office, being no disrespect to the individual, I am sure he is operating under instructions by the Premier, but the Chief of Staff in his office is of course, what we have been told, the chief political fixer for the Premier. Is that not true? Can the Premier not acknowledge what his caucus members have told us repeatedly?

* (1520)

Mr. Filmon: We can, if the member opposite wants to debate the way in which the Pawley-Doer administration handled communications and the way they spent I believe it was almost $3 million annually more than this administration did, employing more than 50 people more, spinners buried in every single department, in every single area of government, all of which was reduced substantially by us as we did indeed look for a way of having a co-ordinated message as opposed to having the kind of messaging that was done at much greater expense and at much greater use of taxpayers dollars and taking much greater liberties, I might say, with respect to spinning the public. We did indeed reduce by several million dollars a year the amount of money that was being spent and we did indeed do this by having a co-ordinated approach to ensuring that government message was consistent.

I make no apologies for it. I think it is a better way, it certainly is a less expensive way, and it certainly has resulted in our having a much more cost-efficient government than the members opposite did. I might say that that recommendation as to getting a more centralized approach to the message came right out of an analysis that was done for the Pawley-Doer administration. The report I think was the Weppler Report that recommended that approach to ensuring that there was a co-ordinated, consistent messaging, and at much less cost. I do not apology for that. I think it is a better way of doing it. Does that mean that anybody is getting more spin by this government? The fact is they are probably not getting as much spin as they were getting from the Pawley-Doer administration, Mr. Chairman, but we believe that it is more consistent, it is more coherent and it is a more co-ordinated way of getting the message out as to what indeed the government does.

The member opposite cannot have it both ways. He will stand up and argue, what is the Premier's point of view. He does not ask the questions every day in the House of the ministers responsible; he asks them of the Premier because he assumes that there is co-ordination. Indeed, what is wrong with that? If there is co-ordination, there ought to be consistency in the government message. There ought to be consistency because they are always looking for contradictions. Every day in this House he will stand up trying to find a contradiction. The whole purpose of this Estimates process is for him to try and find a contradiction, so it is important. He acknowledges that it is important to have consistency and to have co-ordination of message, although he cannot have it both ways now saying that is a bad thing.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairperson, it would be nice if we got some answers from the Premier in Question Period. I am hoping this new speech here today will allow us to get some answers from the Premier in the Question Periods to come. It is traditional that the Leader of the Opposition does pose his question to the head of government. It is not traditional for the head of government to do a full fetal every day and refuse to answer questions. I think if I go back through the last five weeks, the Premier has stood up on maybe two or three questions, where he sits in the bushes and waits till the third question so he cannot answer the question and uses that kind of--he is obviously really committed to these decisions his government is making, that is why he does not stand up and defend them.

So if the Premier finds offence with our asking the questions, oh, I am very sorry but we are not going to stop asking questions tomorrow. It goes with the territory. You would not see a Prime Minister or actually a First Minister in any other Chamber in this country, I dare say, that sits down and has so much to say from his seat and so little to say from his feet as when we watch the member opposite. I mean, today we were asking questions about children in gangs and the Premier just sat there laughing about this issue through Question Period. I know he will say I was not laughing at the issue; I was laughing at you--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: On a point of order, I would ask that the member not put false information on the record. I was not laughing at the issues of children in poverty and children living in difficulty. I never would, Mr. Chair, and I would just ask the member opposite not to further diminish his credibility by putting false statements on the record.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable First Minister did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Doer: I was just conferring with my colleague here and it--[interjection] If the Premier wants to answer the questions in Question Period, we would be very happy that he would do so. If the Premier wants to respond to the fact that there is no co-ordination after eight or nine years in office between one government department and another that he is responsible for, we would be very happy if he did. If the Premier wants to answer why they censored the report from their own Youth Secretariat after taxpayers paid hundreds of thousands of dollars--the only thing we can get from this Premier is censorship and that is the kind of spin and deceit we get from the member opposite--we would be happy. We do not mind engaging in an argument, a discussion, a co-operation.

I wrote the Premier on this issue in September. I have not even got a reply yet. I do not know who is responsible for not replying on youth gangs. We sent out our 18-point plan; we did not even get an answer back from the Premier. I guess he was too busy to deal with this issue. We actually do believe that things are very serious in our communities. We have been saying it for the last number of years. We said that to you when you cut programs in 1991 and 1992, that we are going to pay for it later. You did not listen to us then. Hopefully, you are listening to the public now.

We talked about the cuts in education and what will it mean to our future economy and what it will mean to our future opportunity for our kids. You did not listen to us five years ago or four years ago or three years ago and, again, you continue on with freezes and cuts. Children are telling us that every time you cut a course out of a school, it shuts another door for opportunities for all of us as young people, and we are hoping that the Premier will take some leadership over this approach continually. [interjection] Well, I do not know who is the Charlie McCarthy and who is the Edgar Bergen here between the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh) and the Premier. [interjection] I did not hear the Minister of Education, but her record speaks for itself. It is an absolute disgrace and she knows it and we know it and the Premier should know it, and the Premier will do what he always does and just change his minister just before the next election because the heat will be too great.

Mr. Chairman, getting back to the Lyon, Lyon-Filmon years where these spin people were established, and I would admit that they were carried on, to some degree, in the Pawley years and they have been really carried on and sophisticated in terms of their central political message by this Premier in the Filmon years as opposed to the Lyon-Filmon years. The Lyon- Filmon years started with a couple of people; as I recall, there was a person who worked in the Department of Labour who used to work for the MMA and, I think, was a former reporter of the Winnipeg Tribune, a guy named Kustra. As I recall, it was the first one and I remember being worried about it then, even though I had played hockey with Mr. Kustra well before he was appointed a communication person in the Department of Labour.

Then there was the layoff of numbers of people in the Tribune when the Tribune closed down, and Lyon hired a number of other people. I remember Harry Marsden being hired by the former Minister of Finance, Craig, and a number of other people were hired and off we were with this new profession of communication people in departments and communication people in government.

I happen to be very concerned about that. I know you need a contact for offices and the Premier needs a contact for his office, but I do not believe we need a filter and I do not believe we need a censorship between the elected representatives, whom I have more faith in, quite frankly, of all political parties and the media and the public. I know when I was first appointed a minister and there was a vacant communication position in the Department of Urban Affairs, I cancelled it. I always personally--[interjection] beg your pardon.

Mr. Filmon: Did you have a communicator?

Mr. Doer: No, and if I had, of course, the Premier would have been the first one to raise it because he would have had my comments about the times when the Pawley government hired people and he would have had those comments and would have used them appropriately as Leader of the Opposition then. I am not naive enough not to believe that one should try to practise what one preaches.

However, this has gone to a new level, I believe, of not only sophistication but I believe a new low standard in terms of what people do out of the Premier's Office in terms of the communication message and spin. This is not as if it is the first example of where the Premier has been caught and the Premier's operators have been caught in doing and fixing the "media." We have the example on open-line radio. We have the example of people phoning in to open-line radio from the Premier's Office, saying, I am Mary McGillicuddy and I am a constituent of the Crescentwood constituency and I do not like what--I think it was Avis Gray was doing then or Tim Sale or whatever else. You know, we went on for two or three days saying--and Frank Smith. I am Frank Smith--it was kind of curious that he had this good radio voice--and I am phoning on behalf of my constituents in that constituency.

* (1530)

For two or three days, of course, the Premier stayed behind the closed doors. He did not answer these questions. He sent his deputy premier out to answer the media who said, oh, I do not recognize those voices, and of course that is the kind of honesty that we got from the Premier in his office then. Oh, I do not recognize those voices. People played the tape back--oh, I do not recognize those voices, and two or three days later it became revealed that this kind of dishonest campaign was being conducted right out of the Premier's Office. I happen to believe--and many members have told me--that that is the kind of political tricks that the Premier likes to have out of his office, and that is of course what we saw.

Now we again see, and obviously for every time the Premier is getting caught on these things we think there are many more incidents taking place, but then we see the Premier's caucus people, through what we have been told, the Premier's principal secretary, writing phoney letters to the editor, the Winnipeg Sun, the Winnipeg Free Press, writing phoney letters to the editor, dishonest letters to the editor and having somebody else sign them, some people who do not even exist, and other people who exist and sign them on behalf of the Premier's message.

We also know that when something happens that the government does not like, our phones light up with phone calls. Right? Now, you think that people do not understand. It is surprising to me that the Premier does not understand that on some of these phones you can actually tell where the phone calls are coming from, and every time there is a controversy we always get all these phone calls from inside the building from public employees that say, oh, we do not like what you did in committee last night--yes, there were thousands of people watching committee last night, that is why we got lots of phone calls the next day--we do not like what you did in committee and we really want you to change it and I am a citizen of Transcona or I am one of your constituents in Concordia, I am a constituent in Crescentwood or St. James, out of this building, which are obviously planted calls again from this government and from this Premier. [interjection] Well, if you do not--we do not like it. We have better things to do with our time.

Maybe the Minister of Education has nothing better to do than answer phoney calls in her office, but we have more things to do than get calls from the building from people who are claiming to be constituents at a committee where there were no more than four people watching it, and we get 12 calls from staff inside this building. It is part of this dirty tricks campaign that we see from this Premier. We see absolutely no action at all, no integrity, no honesty and no leadership from this Premier. What has he done about this to clean up the mess in his communication branch and his political communication?

Mr. Filmon: I have indicated, Mr. Chair, that those calls or whatever he is referring to, and this is the first time this has been raised, so if he wants to give me names and phone numbers I will look into it. I think it is a typical fabrication that we get from the Leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Doer: Can the Premier tell us what he has done about the fabrication of letters to the editor? What action has he taken?

Mr. Filmon: I repeat that has been well canvassed publicly as to what were the circumstances, and I have spoken publicly on it. For the purposes of these Estimates, none of that is as a result of any actions by any staff contained within these Estimates, and it is not a matter for further discussion under these Estimates.

Mr. Doer: We believe it is a matter of public concern. We believe that this Legislature should take a leadership position. We believe that the public interest is served by a Premier that says no to dirty political tricks, whether they are phone calls to the open-line shows alleging to be certain people that they are not or whether it is phoney letters to the editor. We believe that the Premier is not being forthright with us when we hear from members of his caucus that there is an organized political activity from the Premier's Office, that that activity flows from the chief political operator in the government, and that is the Chief of Staff of the government of the day.

I would therefore move, seconded by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that the Executive Council Estimates be reduced by $92,580, the amount of salary for the Chief of Staff of the Premier.

Mr. Chairperson: It has been moved by the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), seconded by the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that the Executive Council Estimates be reduced by $92,580, the amount of salary of the Chief of Staff. The motion is in order.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chair, I will not speak at any length about this because I think this speaks volumes about the Leader of the Opposition and his party and the depths to which they have sunk. We have seen the evidence as to their going away from discussing matters of substance, issues of substance, and going on to personal attacks on individuals. It is the kind of thing that has been led by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), and it is a kind of what I would call bottom-feeding politics that have been brought into this Legislature by members of the New Democratic Party, principally led by the member for Crescentwood, who is now obviously yanking the chain of the Leader of the Opposition to encourage him to take attacks on individuals. They have done it to the Speaker. They have done it, obviously, to specific members of government that they choose to devote their attention to.

I think this is something that there is no place for in this Legislature, but the Leader of the Opposition is welcome to spend all the time he wants on this kind of tactic because I think it will forever, forever reserve a place for him in opposition in this government.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I was just wanting to ask a question or two prior to having the vote, and it is with respect to--the Premier made reference to the fact when he tabled the document that indicates the Executive Council--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the honourable member, but there is a motion before the committee at this time. The motion has to be dealt with before you go into the line of questioning. If the honourable member is speaking to the motion, that would be in order.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, it is actually with regard to a salary for one of the members of the Executive Council. Would that be in order?

Mr. Chairperson: I hate to interrupt the honourable member, but that would not be relevant at this time. At this time we have before the committee a motion moved by the honourable Leader of the official opposition, and it has to be dealt with prior to moving on to any more questioning. Is the honourable member going to speak to the motion?

Mr. Lamoureux: We will continue after the vote.

Mr. Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question? The question before the committee is, it has been moved by the honourable member for Concordia, seconded by the honourable member for Wolseley, that Executive Council Estimates be reduced by $92,580, the amount of the salary of the Chief of Staff.

Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to adopt the motion? All those 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. The motion has been defeated.

Mr. Doer: Yeas and Nays.

Mr. Chairperson: Yeas and Nays. A recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.

Both sections in Chamber for formal vote.

This motion was defeated on a voice vote and subsequently two members requested that a formal vote on this matter be taken.

The question before the committee is on the motion of the honourable leader of the official opposition.

A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 20, Nays 26.

Mr. Chairperson: The motion is accordingly defeated.

This section of the Committee of Supply will now continue with consideration of departmental Estimates.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, we just want to indicate due to the circumstances of weather, which is beyond our control, we had agreed to abstain from voting.

Mr. Chairperson: The motion is accordingly defeated.

Mr. Chairperson: This section of the committee will now continue with consideration of departmental Estimates.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Chair, just should the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues want to continue to play their petty games with respect to my Estimates, I want to just indicate to them that the amounts that are shown on the salaries of the various staff positions are without the reduction for the reduced workweek, and should the motion have passed, for instance, there would have been approximately some $3,500 that would have had to been removed from other salaries in order to make up for that resolution. So I would just ask the member opposite that he could apply a factor of 3.8 percent reduction to any of them if he really does want to remove the salary amount from anybody in the future.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairperson, that means that the Premier handed out false information in his material. If his staff cannot get it right, do not hand it out. I do not need any lectures from the member opposite. I recall the Premier moving a motion to delete all the money for Handi-Transit one year. I guess he was proud of that, in fact. I remember him moving a motion for the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), so if he does not like it, tough, we are perfectly prepared--

An Honourable Member: I know you are embarrassed for your stupidity.

Mr. Doer: No, no, we are not embarrassed.

An Honourable Member: We will take your apology.

Mr. Doer: Well, Mr. Chairperson, I would ask--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask all honourable members to refrain from entering into debate. They will all have an opportunity to put their questions when the time arises.

* (1640)

Mr. Doer: On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson, my rights and privileges as a member of this Legislature have been violated by the fact that, first of all, the Premier handed out false information and had no information contained on the document that these numbers were wrong because we had to subtract 3.8 percent.

Now, this is the Premier that has chosen to hide the salaries of the Executive Council by no longer providing Order-in-Councils to provide full disclosure. So when the Premier comes to this House after changing the practice of having full disclosure for salaries by hiding the Order-in-Councils, he should at least have the competence and integrity to hand out numbers that are accurate. If he cannot hand out numbers that are accurate about his senior staff salaries and if they are indeed 3.8 percent wrong, the Premier should have the integrity and the foresight to hand out and correct the record when he hands out the numbers, not some two and a half hours later.

Mr. Filmon: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Doer: I am on a point of order.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.

Mr. Doer: I would like you, Mr. Chairperson, to ask the Premier not to hand out any information that is false and hand out information that is accurate to members of this committee dealing with his Estimates. We are, after all, approving money in the Estimates. The money that we approve in the Estimates should be accurate. If the Premier wants to hand out salaries and subtract 3.9 percent, which we are capable of doing if he is not, then I suggest that he do those calculations before we get the document or correct it on top of the document. When it says, as at March 28, 1997, he could have put, and please subtract 3.9 percent. He could have done that, but he did not do it, and so do not give me your little lecture after. I would ask the Premier to apologize.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable First Minister, on the same point of order.

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, I am interested to watch, on the same point of order, the Leader of the Opposition display his ignorance, particularly when he asks questions earlier on in this debate on Estimates and he was told specifically that on these salaries there would be a reduction of 3.8 percent. This is totally consistent. I said this with respect to his question on the salary of the Clerk of the Executive Council, the Director of the Cabinet Communications Secretariat and, indeed, the position that we were just debating moments ago, that is, the Chief of Staff.

I might say that these are specifically the salaries that are listed on the pay stubs that are issued to each and every one of these employees and, if he may want to check on this, the pay stubs then show an applied deduction.

Having said this to the Leader of the Opposition, I assumed he was listening to the answers that I gave him and not choosing to be as ignorant as he is by not listening to the answers that he was given in this committee. He can stand up and feign indignation, Mr. Chairman, because of his embarrassment over this issue, but the facts are on the record, and he only has to go and listen to the facts and read the record to know that they have been given to him, and he should just get away from all this game playing and get on with the business of debating Estimates.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) did not have a point of order. It was a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Doer: Yes, continuing on the Estimates, and if the members of his staff did say it and I did not hear it I will, unlike the Premier--

Mr. Filmon: I said it. It is on the record. Read. Read Hansard.

Mr. Doer: Well, when is the Premier going to institute the practice of having Order-in-Councils fully disclosed to all members--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I had called the honourable member to order, because we were starting to get into debate between each other and stopping the questioning from coming through the Chair. So the honourable member's question was not put on the record. I would ask the honourable member to reput his question, but put it through the Chair rather than directly to the First Minister.

Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we know, the Premier changed the practice of having full disclosure of salaries and benefits for the senior staff of the Premier's Office and other senior staff of government. It used to be the practice in the public sector that all senior staff salaries, reclassification, and benefits were recorded on Orders-in-Council. So I guess I will have to go back and be very specific on all the staff.

Can the Premier indicate whether the clerk of cabinet, does he still receive the extra pension proposals that are not recorded on this sheet of paper? Is it still as reported in the past, the extra amount of money for pensions, as part of his private contract that is available to the public, and can the Premier please divulge the amount of contribution from the taxpayers and the amount of contributions from the employee?

Mr. Filmon: Again, the Leader of the Opposition is full of wind and rabbit tracks. He does not recall that we had this debate two years ago. Indeed, every Order-in-Council does have the job classification, the salary level on it, so that it does say all these numbers that are here. These are a matter of public record, and they are available on the Orders-in-Council appointing these people. He is wrong again, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Doer: Thank you then. The Premier will please tell us and the House the employer percentage contribution for the clerk of cabinet.

Mr. Filmon: It has not changed from two years ago when the same information was provided. It is approximately 11 percent.

Mr. Doer: So the highest paid civil servant working for the Premier gets an employer-paid pension plan of 11 percent from the taxpayers, is that correct?

Mr. Filmon: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chairman, I guess the Premier wants to discuss all his staff's salaries and rant and rave about it. We will go through it. Does the Premier think it is fair and just for somebody as the highest paid civil servant in--well, he may well be. First of all, I will ask the question: Is the clerk of cabinet the highest paid civil servant in government?

Mr. Filmon: The Clerk of the Executive Council is at the top of the deputy minister range. There will be other deputies who are similarly at the top of that range. I think that is the answer to the question.

Mr. Doer: So the contributions for the Clerk of the Executive Council working for the Premier, the employer portion would be how much per year? At 11 percent, you have got the calculators there. It would be over 12 or 13,000 a year on the employer portion?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chairman, 13,500 is the amount. In lieu of this, of course, the individual is not entitled to any ongoing pension. I would say from having looked at the salaries that are paid by other governments, including New Democratic governments in British Columbia, and a former New Democratic government in Ontario, that this, of course, is substantially less than what is being paid for people in similar positions by New Democratic governments elsewhere in Canada.

Mr. Doer: Can the Premier indicate who is the Secretary to the Premier in the job descriptions, or the titles that are here? I am trying to read it quickly. I have just got it today. We did not get detailed Estimates, and I do not want to suffer the wrath of another Filmon lecture here, but can he please indicate who is the Secretary to the Premier?

Mr. Filmon: The second person on the list. Bonnie Barley is her name.

Mr. Doer: Can the Premier indicate what the pension contribution is, the employer contribution is, for the Secretary to the Premier?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chair, I do not have the number at my fingertips. It is the Civil Service Superannuation plan. It would be whatever is the normal contribution.

* (1650)

Mr. Doer: So the secretary making $35,000 or so a year, now give or take the 3.9 percent that was provided--and I apologize if it was provided to me and I did not hear it; I am human. As I say, we do not get these Orders-in-Council like we used to.

Mr. Filmon: This is not an Order-in-Council appointment, the Secretary to the Premier.

Mr. Doer: I was talking about the 3.9.

Mr. Filmon: The ones that you have asked about, you do get the amount in the Order-in-Council.

Mr. Doer: That is why we saw it just ring right out there when the Orders-in-Council were signed for these excellent benefits in the pension plan. That is right. We really saw it.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. We are starting to drift again.

Could we try to refrain from getting into debate without coming through the Chair? We tend to drift and I understand that, but it will be much better decorum if we keep the questions coming through here.

Mr. Doer: So the Secretary to the Premier making $35,000 minus the 3.8 or 3.9 percent subject to what is happening in negotiations this year, subject to increments, et cetera, et cetera, does that individual get--what would be the employer contribution, less than 7 percent?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Chair, on average I believe that is the figure.

Mr. Doer: Does the Chief of Protocol receive the civil service pension or receive the Super pension that some other members get in his office?

Mr. Filmon: The Chief of Protocol is a civil servant and is a member of the Civil Service Superannuation plan, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Doer: Does the Tour and Itinerary Co-ordinator get the 11 percent employer-paid pension plan or the one that most of the rest of the public employees get?

Mr. Filmon: My understanding is that the individual who is the Tour and Itinerary Co-ordinator has opted out, has chosen not to be a member of the Civil Service Superannuation Fund and gets a payment of approximately 7 percent in lieu of that.

Mr. Doer: The secretary to cabinet--well, we can do the deal with the secretary to cabinet under the later intergovernmental affairs. The special assistant, can the Premier indicate whether that individual gets the 7 percent or less public service plan? Have they opted out, or do they get the 11 percent?

Mr. Filmon: The special assistant, Lizanne Lachance-Mann, has also opted out and is getting the 7 percent payment in lieu.

Mr. Doer: The press secretary to cabinet, has the individual opted out? If they have opted out, do they get the 7 percent pension that everybody, most public employees get, or do they get more than that?

Mr. Filmon: Both people who are listed as press secretary to cabinet, Michelle Bailey-Picard and Roger Matas, have opted out and get the payment in lieu.

Mr. Doer: Can the Premier indicate whether it is 7 percent or below, or is it the 11 percent employer-paid portion?

Mr. Filmon: It is equivalent to the normal Civil Service Superannuation levy, which is approximately 7 percent.

Mr. Doer: Can the Premier please indicate whether the Chief of Staff, notwithstanding, does that individual receive $92,000 minus 3.9 percent plus what percentage of employer-paid pension plan?

Mr. Filmon: I am informed it is the Civil Service Superannuation Fund equivalent, which is approximately 7 percent.

Mr. Doer: The director of communications, I do not know whether I heard it right or not; if he had already stated it, that is fine. I heard Matas and Bailey. If there is the director of communications, can the Premier please indicate the employer-percentage portion of pension, please?

Mr. Filmon: The individual has also opted out and gets the equivalent 7 percent Civil Service Superannuation levy.

Mr. Doer: So am I to assume then the only individual salary in the Premier's line--the Premier gets a 7 percent employer-paid pension under the revised rules. It appears that the majority of his staff, if not all of his staff, do as well. Is it only the Clerk of the Executive Council that receives the 11 percent employer-paid pension plan payment?

Mr. Filmon: Yes, in terms of my Executive Council staff, he is the only one.

Mr. Doer: We are dealing with the salaries and the fairness, not any individual, and I want to make that clear.

An Honourable Member: Are you looking at me, Gary?

Mr. Doer: No, no, the person beside you on your left.

I have a question. The Premier hires and fires the Secretary to Treasury Board. Does the Secretary to Treasury Board still enjoy the 11 percent pension plan as well?

Mr. Filmon: I do not have that information here, because he is not a member of my Executive Council staff. The Leader of the Opposition will have to ask that question under the Estimates of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson).

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being five o'clock, it is time for private members' hour. I am therefore interrupting the proceedings but will resume this matter at 8 p.m. this evening.