Q&A with Premier Brian Pallister

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 03/11/2018 (2709 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Editor’s note: Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister sat down with The Brandon Sun’s editorial board here at 501 Rosser Ave. on Nov. 2, in advance of this weekend’s Progressive Conservative annual general meeting at the Keystone Centre. The Sun board included Brandon Sun managing editor Matt Goerzen, publisher Jim Mihaly and reporter Melissa Verge. The conversation, which has been published below, has been edited for space and content.

MG — What will be your focus for the AGM this weekend?

BP — Well, my focus personally, I will be addressing the gathering tomorrow. It’s great. The registration numbers are really high — over 300. Partly a function, of course, of the fact we have more MLAs. But also I think there is a growing level of local organization that is happening which (is) really healthy. My focus… I’ve listened to a lot of criticism of the media lately from various quarters. Part of my message tomorrow is to stop expecting people who have other responsibilities to do yours for you. We have as members of a political party, we have certain responsibilities — if we want to advance ideas, and if we want to be successful — that are not in the hands of our opponents in other political organizations. And they’re not the media’s job. So lamenting what others are doing doesn’t get you to where you need to go. That will be the gist of my message tomorrow.

What do I mean? Get your own message out. The general public that is interested in public issues, has a chance to espouse and learn that perhaps is the greatest it has ever been in our history. They should use that opportunity. And if they want to speak to others, my goodness, we’ve got mechanisms for doing it. So don’t ask other people to take the message forward. Take the message forward.

And go out and ask for ideas. Recruit. Encourage. Cajole if you have to. But get people involved.

BILL 8: PUBLIC NOTICES IN NEWSPAPERS

JM — The concern that I have… talking about Bill 8, and your thoughts. The government notices modernization act. There’s a portion in there that really caught the eye of the newspaper industry in Manitoba.

BP — On the public notices pieces?

JM — Correct. It’s there, but not invoked. But I guess the question is, why is it there? It’s not about as I said, keeping our fiscal house in order. It’s not about the money. It’s more a perception. The perception of Bill 8 if it’s invoked, saying hey, we’re going to pull all important notices out of papers and go online, it sends a negative message to what we’re battling right now.

BP — Right. And the timeliness of what you’re battling has never been more apparent, right? So I think that’s the sensitivity. And that’s why the commitment to not invoke it and to engage in dialogue so we can transition this thing the way we need to do. I think there’s no doubt that … everybody is getting their information in different ways now. We all know that. That’s the reality of the situation.

My relationship as a public servant over 30 years with the public, depended on my ability to work with my local newspapers. That was to me, the single best way — and I still maintain it is the single best way — to build on those relationships. So, there are other things besides public notices. The key point is we’re not enacting it. It’s not on the immediate horizon. And we are committed to the dialogue that has to happen so that as this moves forward we’re doing it cooperatively with the industry. As you know we’ve reduced the amount of government advertising. And rightly so, by our numbers we were ahead of every other province in how much we were spending on government, largely self-promotional advertising. But we’re directing that money into tourism promotion, so there should be opportunities on that side as well. Whether immediate or ripple.

MG — I look at it from an editorial point of view — it would appear the government can wield it (Bill 8) like an axe. We don’t like what you’re writing, and we’re going to enact this.

BP — Well that’s my concern also, and it’s not just my concern, with the whole battle to have the federal government do the subsidy program thing too. I don’t know how you get around that…. What we’ve tried to do is to reduce the temperature on this, and get us working cooperatively. I’m going to sound naive in saying this, but I really haven’t had a bad experience with a newspaper publisher in 30 years. I’ve had disappointments for sure.

I depended on… well I don’t know if I should use the word evangelical… enthusiastic-focused reporting on issues of merit that mattered, that a newspaper can get into, that TV can’t do. Doesn’t do. That radio, most of the time, doesn’t do.

MG — Is there any signal that you can give us that this won’t be used like a hammer?

BP — Well, because it’s gone so far, I can’t tell you… why would I, why would you… I just said we’re not proclaiming it. That’s where it is. There no immediate plans to proclaim it. That’s where it sits.

THE METH CRISIS

MG — The province has been criticized for not treating the increase in meth use in Manitoba as a crisis, and we’ve been seeing a massive increase in Brandon and surrounding areas…

BP — Portage and Brandon are showing up on the numbers very significantly.

MG — We’re also hearing Erickson is overrun.

BP — Yes. There are pockets. It was a major breakthrough yesterday. The police are now sort of refocusing their strategies as well. I’d say we’re playing catch up.

MG — Do you call it a crisis?

BP — I hesitate to inflame what is already a very enflamed issue. Last year I think we would have all called the opioid epidemic a crisis probably. Things shift, and they shift rather quickly. The challenge we have is being in front of it rather than chasing it all the time.

There’s a ton of things that should have been done years ago. But I’m not blaming anybody. I’m just saying this is an issue that is clearly on our radar, and we’re very anxious to pursue actions that will not just address the meth issue, but get us in front of other substance abuse issues as well.

ADDICTIONS SERVICE IN RURAL MANITOBA

MG — We have the new RAAM clinic that opened up here in Brandon. Local critics say well, that’s a Band-Aid solution, and that the larger issue is we need a detox facility. There does seem to be a need for increased addictions services in rural Manitoba. Is there any action by the province to move more services here —aside from the clinic of course.

BP — I think it would be premature for me to go to the end of the process right now. I’ll just say, yeah, more than on our radar there are certainly a number of things being actively investigated right now. There is also a need to broaden this beyond government. And that is not to suggest government doesn’t have a role. But the communities themselves — local level — have a role too. For example, I do a lot of mingling with people. I was talking with a lady the other day. She walked me down here street. Four doors to where there is a meth lab. I said, have you reported this. Yes I have. The police came by once, but then they went away. But it’s here. And, its there. The communities have a chance to deal with some of these issues in terms of the actual dealers themselves. I think that’s a role. I don’t suggest every community set up its own detox facility on its own. But community solutions are the ones that will work long term.

MG — I guess my point is, can we expect a little bit more push from the province in rural areas to help?

BP — I’ll only say we know the problem is not solely in Winnipeg and leave it at that. But there are things underway right now that I can’t share with you right now.

REVENUE FROM LEGALIZED CANNABIS

MG — Changing topics, are you expecting any amount of revenue from the legalization of marijuana?

BP — No. Not at all. We have the lowest taxes now and the lowest retail price because we have the lowest street price. The gangs that distribute it — and it’s principally gang distributed — are lowering their prices. There is no point in trying to treat this as a revenue generator. Certainly in the short term, because your competition doesn’t fail to respond to its competitive pressures of course. Now I understand you can buy it… oh I’d better not say that. You can get a pound of real good street pot…. let’s leave that out. (laughter)

I’m going to say quite frankly I am very confident that the model we’ve developed is the best in Canada. And the model lets the private sector do what it should be doing best — obviously with restrictions on things like location of the stores, it’s not free range out there. But it lets the private sector do what it should do well. And it lets the public sector do what it should do well, and that is the single purchase thing gets us lower costs. We haven’t had the supply problems B.C., Quebec, already you’re seeing. The whole country. You know my view on this; it was rushed. It’s too fast. The beneficiaries of that rush are probably going to be the gangs, because their retail model will advance in response to our business model. But lower cost, good selection and safer product matters. And so we are finding initial responses with our retail locations have been obviously very good.

There will be 10 new stores by the end of the year. And there will be others coming on stream. And the government should not be telling retail investors — everyone has to put down 50K… capital investments. There’s hundreds of jobs going to be created. Indigenous people partners will have the chance to participate, more here than in any other province. There’s good opportunities for job creation in this industry. And of course, it all depends on pushing the black market down. Other provinces are going to have real trouble with that, because they’re investing in bricks and mortar. Very expensive, higher tax. So no, NO. Don’t count on a bunch of revenue. Don’t count on a kick back to all the RMs because of blah blah blah.

The retailers will make money, but we’ll have health care costs, leasing costs. We’re going to have justice system costs. We’re going to have psychosis with young kids, because under age kids are going to use this product somewhat more frequently now that it is legitimized by its legality. There’s real costs, and we’ve got to cover those costs.

Our model is a front-end levy to assist us in covering those costs that we think may go part way, and then at the end a social responsibility levy. That levy will apply to everyone who sells it on gross sales. But it’s not paid until (2020). So we don’t have revenue yet.

MG — So after all is said and done, after all the work that has been put into this, has it been worth it?

BP — If they had delayed it a year, it would have been. The prime minister kept his promise. We could have assured supply. What you’ve got now, Quebec stores are operating three days a week on reduced hours. Who benefits from that? The underground economy. They’re not shutting their doors. They got the same alley to sell out of. It was rushed; it was a mistake. We did the best we could with what we (provinces) were given. I think Manitoba did this respectfully. I think we will get the best of both worlds. But not without problems. There will be problems with a rushed thing like this. There will be break-ins at stores — once Brandon gets a store, there’s probably going to be a break in. Someone will try selling black market, and we’ll have to shut him down. That stuff’s going to happen.

But we have a system, which means that we’re going to get better quality, safer product in the hands of those who wish to buy it, while we’re protecting the people who don’t want to use it. I’m proud of the fact that we’re going on the 19 (years of age), not 18. As a former teacher.

CARBON TAX AND TAXATION IN GENERAL

MG — Carbon Tax — You had a legal opinion about this, saying the federal government would have to respect your plan if you had one….

BP — No. We couldn’t fight them on the argument which is somewhat the argument Ontario is making right now. We’ll observe and at some point intervene in that case. These are early days yet. But that’s not the case we felt was a winning case. That the feds don’t have the power to do this… according to (Schwartz), they can do it. The devil’s in the details. At some point if we are forced to go to court, we have done the best job of any province in setting up a defense for Manitobans.

MG — I understand you have enacted a lot of environmental protections.. but…

BP — We have a green record, but it’s more than that. Every passing day I’m seeing exceptions made in other provinces that they wouldn’t make for us. That makes a case. It’s not enough to say you have the power to do it, and do it differentially in four provinces on the east side of the Ottawa River. They’re actually helping make our case for us.

MG — But aren’t those provinces playing ball with the feds?

BP — Well, it shouldn’t be a question of power, it should be a question of climate change. That’s what we’re doing.

MG — But you had a system in place that would have charged $25 a ton on carbon.

BP — Yeah, to comply with the federal requirement. One page of our 67-page green plan. Sixty-six pages — were acting on that. One page we’re not.

MG — And editorially we supported you on that. (BP — “Thanks.”) In taking that away, however, you surprised not only us, but a lot of your MLAs.

BP — So it’s been reported.

MG — Well that’s what I’m hearing. So I wonder, doesn’t this put you in a bad position?

BP — No, it puts us in a great position. Because we had a plan for a year that we attempted to negotiate with the feds, which they said no to. Then they threatened us with the withdrawal of $67-million of low carbon economy fund money, and only today did we get an assurance that that threat was off the table. These actions demonstrate an abuse of power, not a proper fair use of power. By allowing another province to have a carbon levy which at this time is a third of what they say they will impose on us, they’ve also demonstrated an inequality that weakens their case. They’ve also exempted certain things in other provinces like use of coal to produce power. Home heating costs. These they refuse to except in our province. This differential application of power demonstrates weakness in the case that the federal government is trying to make, that they’re going to make polluters pay. In fact, they’ll make some polluters pay more than others. They’ll reward Saskatchewan for example, 80 per cent more per household than Manitoba, on their rebate scheme. What sense does that make? Who’s greener? I know who’s greener.

MG — Any idea why then are they not making a deal with Manitoba?

BP — I think the argument the prime minister would make, were he here, would be, if we do it for you, we’d have to do it for everybody. And my answer was, and will remain we had a better plan than everybody. So why not do it for everybody. Our plan was developed over a year. We had over 10,000 Manitobans involved in the development of our plan. The strong consensus was that a level, flat — like the Prairie horizon — levy was going to be better to change habits, and would be better because it would be predictable for small and medium enterprises.

The feds wouldn’t buy the argument, and good Lord we tried. So now at my last discussion — and normally I wouldn’t reveal discussions, but this one’s been reported — the prime minister and I shared our perspectives on this issue again, and his comment to me was, well we can fight about it in a year.

And so my choice became clear and evident that day, that we either fight him in a year when they raise it above our flat level, because we’re at the middle, or I fight him now. And the uncertainty issue is big. I’ve talked to several small businesses, people from this area at the Chamber, who don’t like the uncertainty. I don’t like it either.

We’re doing well on our economic numbers. This has not been widely reported. We lead the country in attracting private sector capital investment. We’re first this year, and we’re projected to be first next year. That has never ever happened in the history of Manitoba, since Stats Canada kept those stats. Why? Because we have stabilized our tax. We don’t have the lowest taxes, but we’ve stabilized our tax structure. We have a referendum requirement that you can’t raise the taxes without.

MG — We’ve criticized that…

BP — Well you can if you wish, but it does create a more stable environment. If you and I are in the business of recruiting capital, you would like that law a lot. Business people like it. Because they know that our PST, our corporate tax rates can’t be raised without permission. That’s helpful.

If you take money off the kitchen tables of small and medium enterprise, which is the Liberal model — they say they will recycle it, we’ll see. But it’s the SMEs, that’s who’s going to get whacked. Not the high polluters. They say not the households, but I’m not sure. Their numbers don’t fit with ours.

This is a dangerous approach. We should be fighting climate change together, and we are doing that better than most jurisdictions in the country. But to be punished, to not be recognized for $15 billion going into Hydro electricity… and they’re investing in a pipeline in Alberta. Come on.

MANITOBA METIS FEDERATION DISPUTE

MG — We wrote an editorial today about your government ratcheting up the dispute with the Manitoba Metis Federation…

BP — Well we’re ratcheting it down. If you read the truth and reconciliation report, and I’m sure you have, you will find numberous references to respectful consultations.

David Chartrand was used to threatening lawsuits and getting his organization rewarded for withdrawing from consultative processes. That is abhorrent to me. You know I am a deliberative democracy guy. You know because I set up community consultations on virtually every issue. K-12, child care reform, green plan. I believe you involve the people.

We do not get anywhere by paying people to agree to developments they disagree with. No way. This agreement had a 30-day withdrawal clause, so we’re withdrawing from it.

MG — And they’re saying they’ll take you to court for it.

BP — Yeah, well good luck. I’m not a lawyer but I can read. It’s a 30-day withdrawal clause. What president Chartrand is used to doing is threatening and then being rewarded for the threat. But the problem for paying someone that auspices is obvious — you lose their perspectives. I give you the Bipole consultation which never happened because it was excluded by the NDP, excluded from the Needs For and Alternatives process — the NFAT process. On what basis do you exclude a potentially $6 billion investment that goes across my family’s farm by the way, on what basis do you do that? It was wrong to do.

The Metis Federation prepared a submission, and it was not heard, because it was outside of the scope. It would (leans into the voice recorder) piss you off. If we had done that, how would you feel? Seriously, that’s offensive. So then they’re offered a “turning the page” agreement. A million a year for 20 years. So they agree, in the agreement, not to sue. This is not how I do business. This is not how Manitobans treat each other. This is not what truth is. This is not what reconciliation is. And I am really proud of our government.

And if David wants to get with the new program and be consulted, I’m happy. But to threaten, to delay, things like flood proofing Lake Manitoba, to threaten to delay unless you’re paid is absolutely wrong. We’re trying to protect Metis people who live around Lake Manitoba. And president Chartrand is threatening to delay the project unless he gets paid. That under this premier, will not happen.