Manitoba Hansard — 18 September 2003 (Sitting 09A, 38th Legislature, 1st Session)

38-1-09a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LIV No. 9A – 10 a.m., Thursday, September 18, 2003

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY First Session–Thirty-Eighth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation AGLUGUB, Cris The Maples N.D.P. ALLAN, Nancy St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thom pson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter Gimli N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. CALDWELL, Drew, Hon. Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen Ste. Rose P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia N.D.P. DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C.

FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. LOEWEN, John Fort Whyte P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon.

Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine Riel N.D.P. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon. Minto N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. MURRAY, Stuart Kirkfield Park P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa Seine River N.D.P. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack Southdale P.C. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Carman P.C. RONDEAU, Jim Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SALE, Tim, Hon. Fort Rouge N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Wellington N.D.P. SCHELLENBERG, Harry Rossmere N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P.

SMITH, Scott, Hon. Brandon West N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

811 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, September 18, 2003 The House met at 10 a.m. PRAYERS Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery, where we have with us from the Applied Linguistics Centre 10 English-as-a-Second- Language students under the direction of Ms. Jennifer Loewen. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Mines (Ms. Mihychuk). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Mr.

Speaker: The House will now resolve into Committee of Supply. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) EDUCATION AND YOUTH * (10:00) Mr. Chairperson (Mr. Harry Schellenberg): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will now resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Youth. As had previously been agreed, questioning for this department will follow in a global manner. Chairperson's Ruling Mr. Chairperson: Before I open the floor to questions, I have a ruling. During the consideration of departmental Estimates for Education and Youth in Room 254 on September 17, 2003, the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) raised a point of order questioning the relevance of an answer given by the honourable Minister of Education and Youth (Mr.

Lemieux). The honourable Member for Springfield (Mr. Schu ler), the honourable Member for Dauphin-Roblin (Mr. Struthers) and the honourable Member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) also spoke to the point of order. I would like to thank all honourable members for their contribution to this point of order. I would also like to take this opportunity to identify for all honourable members some factors relating to the relevance of speeches in the Committee of Supply.

First of all, the honourable Member for Russell referenced a provision of Beauschesne's Citation 417 which states that answers to questions should be brief and not provoke debate. However, this citation applies only to Question Period and is not applicable in the ommittee of Supply. C Secondly, our rule 75(3) states that speeches in a Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under discussion. This rule must be considered, though, in a context of an agreement reached by this committee on September 12, 2003, as noted on page 455 of Hansard.

The committee agreed at that time to conduct a global discussion during the consideration of these Education and Youth Estimates. Agreements such as this one allow for latitude in the scope of questions and answers as opposed to the more structured chronological style of inquiry.

While our rule 75(3) does specify that speeches in Estimates must be relevant to the item under discussion, in a global discussion such as the current one, the entire department is effectively the item under onsideration. c With these points in mind, I am ruling that the answer provided by the honourable Minister of Education and Youth should be considered

812 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 18, 2003 relevant and that the honourable Member for Russell does not have a point of order. I would add that Manitoba Supply chair- persons have provided similar rulings on June 5, 2000, and June 21, 2000. I believe all honourable members wish to keep the discussion flowing constructively and I respectfully ask for your co-operation in this matter. I thank you. We will now resume with our Estimates. The floor is now open for questions. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Thank you for the ruling, Mr. Chairperson.

Yesterday, in the discussion on the Education Estimates, we seemed to stray from the issue that was being asked about to discussion by the minister on all kinds of aspects of education including strobe lights, and I am really not sure how we got to strobe lights. Nevertheless, that happens when a minister does not have any answers and then begins to wander all over the place just to take up time.

I should advise the minister that we do have significant amount of time left in Estimates, and until we get to some answers on the issues that we are asking about, the minister may choose to waste some time in Estimates but, nevertheless, we will try to focus our time and our questions to the matter at hand. The matter at hand, Mr. Chairperson, is one that we raise because of the political implications and the raw politics that could be involved in the whole issue in the administration of money from the Department of Education.

We had asked the minister to explain to us how it is that a division came to receive almost half a million dollars in order to harmonize salaries in a time when there was a wage dispute and a strike going on in one particular division. There seemed to be no criteria that the minister can point to in flowing this money.

There does not seem to be any ability of the minister to explain the rationale behind flowing the money except to say that there was a significant gap. * (10:10) We have learned that the division did not ask, made no formal or informal request for money from the department or from the minister either. So it leaves a lot of unanswered questions with regard to what the motivation might have been to flow this money. Mr.

Chairperson, at this point in time, although we have asked the minister why he and his department became directly involved, we have no idea as to where the genesis of the money came from and who initiated the actual idea of flowing the money since the division has emphatically stated that neither formally nor informally did they make any request for money fro m the minister or from the department.

Now, obviously, within the department someone must have generated a paper, a background paper or something that would have suggested that this division is under significant financial stress, and in order to save programs or, I guess, alleviate stress for student education, this money was necessary to flow. Somewhere that rationale must be housed within the department, and I am assuming within his finance branch. Mr. Ch air, additionally, we know the minister said that Louis Riel, for example, settled their harmonization issue without requesting any assistance from the Government.

Well, I say to the minister, neither did Sunrise. Sunrise did not make any formal or informal request for financial assistance. We saw letters yesterday tabled by the minister, one was not tabled by the minister, which we were able to obtain. It showed that all the division was asking was for a meeting with the minister, a meeting which did not happen during the time in question. Even without a meeting, the minister did manage to flow money to the division to settle this dispute.

However, in the Estimates, we also were able to extract the fact that the minister and his department and Government did meet with CUPE representatives during a time of dispute. This is highly unusual, Mr. Chair, that a minister and his department would have involved themselves in discussions with one side of the two parties that were in dispute over a wage issue and over a contract issue. So this whole scenario really is suspicious in terms of the motivation by government to do this. We know that the settlement between the

September 18, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 813 two parties occurred on and about the 17th of April and that between the 10th of April and the 17th of April, a decision was made to flow this money. We also know that as late as the 10th of April, the minister made it very clear that the department would not be intervening in this matter and would not be forwarding money. Yet within a week, a decision was made to flow almost half a million dollars to this division. We know, Mr.

Chair, that the election was called on the 2nd of May, and that there appears to be some connection of the events that had occurred to in fact the call of the election. We then are also left to question whether or not there was some interference here by government beyond this minister's office. There are many unansw ered questions as it relates to this issue and we simply want to ask the minister today to provide for us the best answers he can on this specific issue, not on any other issues in the department. We want to focus on this particular issue.

So this morning I want to begin by asking the minister if he can provide for us the names of the divisions or the name of a division that may have requested financial assistance for harmonization of salaries since the election. Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Education and Youth): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson, and for your ruling that you made this morning with regard to Estimates. I just want to say that I th ank the member for the question.

Through Estimates and certainly prior, we have made mention to not only media but others about $112,000 going to Sunrise School Division this year and other monies that would be going, and we assisted Sunrise School Division because of the huge gap there was in salaries, upwards of 60 percent, which is a huge gap anywhere in the province, comparatively speaking. It has always been the Government's role to act in the public interest in labour disputes, especially where there is a possibility of strike action, I guess, or lockout.

Labour Relations has a mandate to monitor labour issues throughout the province and act in the public interest. Labour Relations also, at the request of parties, can facilitate mediation conciliation services and through that process become engaged with the parties involved. When we passed amalgamation legislation, we assured school divisions that we would work with them through the process whether it was on wage disparity or other issues.

We continue to let all school divisions know, amalgamated and otherwise, that we are there for them and we are willing to sit down with them at any time to discuss any kind of challenges they have, whether it be safety issu es, whether it be salary ssues and there could be many more. i The question the member asked was whether there have been any divisions requesting specific financial support recently. My answer is that, to the best of my knowledge and what I have been advised, is currently we have not had any requests at all for financial support or any kind of support to sit down and talk to a division.

We did receive a letter requesting a meeting and showing that they wanted to meet to discuss the wage disparity in Sunrise School Division which is asking for support and asked for support. MAST and CUPE formally and informally, through meetings and otherwise, had discussed harmonization and wage gaps that there are in the province.

Recently, we have not received any requests, whether it be Prairie Rose or any other school division, whether it was amalgamated or not. * (10:20) With regard to Prairie Rose School Division, they have a conciliation officer, I believe, assigned to them from the Department of Labour, to work with the parties, to try to get them together and work together. That, I understand, broke off last Thursday, and they have been on strike now for four days, officially, I understand. But Prairie Rose has not gone to mediation. They have not tried to use that approach.

As I mentioned, talks broke off, and ediation is available to both of those parties. m So there you have a difference, where you have Sunrise School Division writing a letter,

814 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 18, 2003 wanting to meet, asking for assistance and wanting us to participate and to assist them, and then you have Louis Riel, who was able to sit down and bargain in good faith and come up with a collective agreement without asking, at least, again, to the best of my knowledge, any assistance from the department to help them out. Just to answer the member's question, to the best of my knowledge and to the best of the knowledge of the staff that are with me, we have not received any requests thus far from anyone wanting assistance, financially or otherwise. Mr.

Derkach: Mr. Chair, has the minister received a request from any of the other amalgamated school divisions asking him for a meeting to discuss the issue of harmonization of salaries? Mr. Lemieux: So far I have met with a number of amalgamated divisions, as I mentioned yes- terday. Within those discussions, harmonization has come up. The amalgamated divisions have stated in just broad terms, no specific numbers, that is an area of concern.

When I met with MAST, with the parent organization, they have said that this is an area, not only French language services and a number of different areas, that they can see as a challenge for them, but they mentioned that salaries are a real concern. There are ones, whether it is Southwest Horizon or Park West, where it is rural school divisions amalgamating with each other. Some of them do not have a large discrepancy in their salaries, the non-teaching staff.

So to the best of our knowledge we do not have a request from any division that is pending, as far as we know, asking for a meeting to discuss harmonizing salaries or dealing specifically with that issue. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chair, I want to put this in perspective. The minister has said that he has met with several of the amalgamated school divisions to discuss harmonization and other issues.

In this case, and I have the letter in front of me from Sunrise School Division, the division indicates that there is a significant discrepancy in terms of the wages of non-teaching personnel, but there is no reference here in this letter or anywhere that I can see that asks for financial support. The division simply is writing to ask for a meeting. The minister uses this letter to justify his flow of money to the division. We are not saying that the division should not receive the money. What we are looking at is the process of how this was all managed.

So the division writes a letter to the minister, asks for a meeting. The minister indicated to us in Estimates that he did not meet with the school division during that period of time, but that he did meet with CUPE representatives. On that basis, we are left with the impression that somebody from the department had to ascertain that $428,000 was required to meet the needs of the school division and CUPE in order to arrive at a settlement.

Can I ask the minister whether he would give us the name of the Labour Relations person or the people within his department who met with CUPE and with the school board to identify exactly how much money was required to settle this salary dispute? Mr. Lemieux: Just making reference to the letter, once again, it came from the board chair. As I mentioned, CUPE and MAST, in particular MAST, have raised this concern about wage harmonization and the concern they have had over it and have brought that to my attention. Their officials have met with me in person and at other events have talked about this.

In the letter from the superintendent and the board chair, it talks about we would like to enter into discussions relating to the wages. So what they are talking about is that they know that there is a huge gap there and that there was a problem. There is a problem with the gap that they had and the gap they were trying to fill, and they felt that they were certainly not able to do that and fill that gap. * (10:30) Now, as I mentioned, there are departmental people within government. Government people were in conversation with MAST.

When MAST and CUPE were asked whether or not they were prepared to go to mediation, they agreed to go to mediation. They agreed to go to mediation, but then when you had government staff talking to MAST and MAST officials, they asked for a meeting to discuss some of the challenges they had. They agreed to go to mediation, both parties

September 18, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 815 agreed to go to mediation, and they talked about the wage disparity. Sunrise School Division representatives identified the wage disparity issue at that time and talked about the challenge it posed for them. So mediation commenced. When that meeting took place, you have MAST talking to government staff that they were able to identify the sums of money that were necessary, where the gap was, where Sunrise School Division was only able to cover two- thirds of the wage disparity.

So, when the member asks, you know, where did that come from, that is where it came from. It came from MAST. MAST informed and told government that that was the problem. They could only cover, the school division could only cover two-thirds of the cost. So, when MAST told a government official this then, that really posed a challenge, because then you realize with this huge gap in salaries the invitation to participate and to be involved– we told amalgamated divisions that throughout this process we would work with them on all the challenges that they faced, not only financial, but otherwise.

So we were in a position to try to assist them. What we did was we certainly took a look at all of our options and felt that hearing this from the MAST representative and the members of the negotiating team talking to our government official that this was something that we had to seriously consider. We did so. As I mentioned yesterday, I went to Treasury Board with a document, a Treasury Board submission. That is essentially how the process worked. So we were very pleased to be able to work with MAST. What we did was we concluded that.

Mediation commenced and then the parties were able to conclude a tentative agreement, and the strike ended and the parties returned to work. I guess the question I as k the member is that I guess he would not like to see that money. The member from Springfield would not like to have seen that money or that strike settled. That is regrettable, because the children were out, the strike was, you know, beginning to escalate. I know the chair of the board was cleaning toilets in the schools. It is regrettable that they do not see fit to see that labour dispute rectified and ended. Mr. Derkach: Well, Mr.

Chair, I do not know what the minister has just said. He is making the inference that we did not want to see the strike settled. I just indicated to the minister in my previous comments that I am not questioning the money that has flowed to the Sunrise School Division in terms of the need, but, Mr. Chair, we have another school division that is on strike right now. We have bus drivers that are not working. Children are not in school. The minister has said that he was concerned about children not being in school, about the strike going on.

We have the very same situation today in Carman, where children are not in school, bus drivers are on strike. So is he saying that he is going to, on an ad hoc basis, intervene to make sure the children are back in the classroom and the strike is settled? Mr. Chair, he has also indicated to us that it was MAST that asked for the assistance. Now, I do not know, the salary dispute is between the school division and CUPE, and MAST is there as an agent to assist, perhaps, their member, who is the school division. But certainly MAST is not directly the negotiating partner in that dispute.

They are there as an assistant to the school division. Now, Mr. Chair, the minister also indicated that government staff were talking to MAST and they were talking to the school division. Now, can the minister tell me: Was it his Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance who was talking to the school division and MAST? Was it somebody from outside his department? Can the minister identify who, in fact, from his department was doing the direct consultation with the school division and with the parties that were involved in the labour dispute? Mr. Lemieux: Thank you for the question.

The member asked two or three questions. I would like to try to start, I think, with the first one where he asked about the Prairie Rose dispute. Prairie Rose dispute is somewhat different than the Sunrise. I will tell you how it is different. It is different because Prairie Rose

816 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 18, 2003 School Division has a conciliation officer appointed to them. They have chosen to break that off and to go on strike. The parties, of course, have their differences. Prairie Rose has not gone to mediation,

whereas Sunrise went to mediation. They went to mediation, they asked for assistance, they wrote a letter asking for assistance and then they went to mediation. The March 24 letter from the chair of the Sunrise School Division saying we would like to enter into a discussion relating to disparity and wages and so on, and that particular letter– Mr. Chairperson: Point of order? Point of Order Mr. Chairperson: Member for Russell, on a point of order. Mr. Derkach: Yes, I just want to correct the minister because he said that they had gone into mediation, and then the school division wrote the letter.

The letter was written on March 24 asking for a meeting. I would just like to ask the minister to give us a chronological order of events. Mr. Chairperson: On the same point of order? [interjection] There is no point of order. It is a dispute of the facts. * * * Mr. Lemieux: I thank the member for that. Yes, the letter was written to me on March 24, and then they entered into mediation on, I believe, around April 10. He is correct. No, I did not mean to reverse them, that they went to mediation and then the letter came. I want to just comment on the difference between the situations.

I mentioned about the Prairie Rose dispute. Prairie Rose have available to them mediation through the labour relations area of the Department of Labour and Immigration. I am not telling them they have to go to mediation, but I am saying if they are at loggerheads and they just cannot see their way through a number of issues, that mediation is there for that particular purpose. Sunrise went to mediation. Nor have I received a letter from Prairie Rose School Division at all.

The point I am trying to make here is that we said that we would work with every school division in the province bar none and the amalgamated divisions after the amalgamation took place, that we would continue working with them. We would work with them on a lot of issues, not just issues related to the fiscal side or the financial side. There were assets, for example. There are a lot of assets, and I know the member from Russell is very much aware of assets that have to be shared between Birdtail and Pelly Trail. Those assets, they are still in discussions in Park West about what happens to certain assets.

The department is there to help. We had government- rovided staff to assist them in this role. p We continue to work with the divisions. We know that there are going to be some challenges ahead. We will continue to work with them as well. Hopefully, we will be able to resolve them. There is a big difference between a Prairie Rose dispute and a Sunrise disp ute, as there is with Louis Riel.

The challenge for government, as I see it, is that you have some divisions that are able to, with the monies we provided, the $50 per head or whatever it is, they are able to deal with their wage differences and the challenges they have got, whether it is pension or otherwise. It is a real challenge for government because you have such a difference in salaries across the board, but also differences with divisions able to deal with the financial pressures that they have. Some are able to and some are not able to. Mr. Derkach: I do not want to prolong the debate, Mr.

Chair, just to ask one more time for the minister to identify the individuals that were involved directly with Sunrise School Division nd CUPE in this dispute. a He says that government officials met with MAST, they met with the school division. He did not meet with the school division. He has not been able to identify who from his department met with the school division and with the CUPE dministration or representatives. a I have asked now three times if the minister could identify the individual or individuals who

September 18, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 817 in fact met to establish that this was the amount of money that was going to be required to settle the dispute. Someone had to go out to meet with the board; someone had to meet with either MAST or with CUPE to bring those numbers together. The Treasury Board submission, and that is the other thing that I want to ask the minister is the date of the Treasury Board submission. When did the minister go to the Treasury Board with that submission? Was it after the 10th? Before the 10th?

I know that that documentation is available, and I would ask the minister to share it with us when he went to Treasury Board with his submission for the money. Prior to that submission, somebody had to meet with the school board and with CUPE. I am asking the minister to identify who from his department or who from government met with the board and with CUPE representatives to establish the amount of money that was going to be required to settle the dispute. Mr. Lemieux: Mr. Chairperson, I thank the member for the question.

The amount, as I mentioned, the amount of money that was identified that was the real gap, the people who identified that was a superintendent, a Mr. Bell, a couple of representatives– * (10:40) An Honourable Member: Bell? Mr. Lemieux: I believe, that is– [interjection] He was part of the negotiating team, as well as a couple of representatives off the negotiating team. I cannot remember the person. A superintendent, a couple of people off the negotiating team and a person at a high level with MAST met with the government official and told the government official that it was very important.

It was MAST's role, of course, as part of that team. It was very important that, because of the huge gap, they were only able to cover approximately two-thirds of their costs. Of course, this came back to our department and then we had to give some serious consideration o this. t The staff that represented government were from the Labour Relations–Compensation area. They received a call from, I do not have to use the gentleman's name, but he is from MAST and he called asking for a meeting to discuss the specifics about what the dilemma was to resolve the labour dispute.

Both parties had agreed to mediation, the mediation commenced and then the parties were able to get together and conclude a tentative agreement and then the strike ended and the parties returned to work. Again, the other part of it is that I just want to clarify that the member differs then from the member from Springfield (Mr. Schuler) about the monies going to, wanting the monies to flow to Sunrise School Division. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chair, the minister did not answer the question. I asked the date of the Treasury Board submission and who the official was. Mr.

Lemieux: Well, with due respect to the member from Russell, he asked me whether or not, who were the people that submitted to government how many dollars were needed. It was a high-level person from MAST and part of the negotiating team, a couple of representatives from Sunrise, and I believe it was the superintendent as well. So there was a high-level person from MAST that was there, and they are ones who put their cards on the table and said: We are only able to cover a portion of the gap.

They made a case on how important that was because they could only handle a certain part of the difference and so they came back to government. The person from the Labour Relations–Compensation area came back to government and expressed to government what the diffe rences were and what the challenges were. So I think I answered the member's question on he was saying: Who brought the amount of money to government, how much was needed or what was the gap, what was the problem, where was the difference in the dispute?

As I mentioned, mediation got back together and the parties were asked would they be able to get back to mediation or to, yes mediation, and they did so. Then, of course, the parties concluded their tentative agreement and they went back to work.

818 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 18, 2003 Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr. Chairperson, again, we are just trying to gather some information here. The minister had just mentioned this negotiating team and he had mentioned that there was a government official as a part of that process. We are just wondering who that government official is. Mr. Lemieux: Just to clarify, when a call came to government asking for a government official to be involved, to participate, the negotiating team was made up of the superintendent, two other people from the division and the MAST rep.

The MAST rep is the person who called the government official from the Labour Relations area and they were the ones who expressed to the gap and what they were really talking about in dollars to our government-appointed rep– resentative. Sorry. Yes, and the point I was going to make, I thank the member for the question, from Tuxedo, that government never participated in the negotiations. The government official was informed about what the gap was, and that is where that sum of money came from and that came back to government. Thank you. Mrs.

Stefanson: Who is this government official that the minister is referring to? Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me. I will give the floor to the Member for Tuxedo for a moment. Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Chair, I am just not sure if the minister heard my question, because I do not think he should need to speak to staff about this particular one. He is referring to this government official. I am just asking who this government official is that he is referring to. Mr. Lemieux: It is a gentleman from the Labour Relations–Compensation area. I do not know if the member is asking for a specific name or not. I can confirm who that is.

I can confirm who the person was or whether– Mrs. Stefanson: The minister is referring to this government official throughout all of these conversations we are having. I will ask the minister again if he can find out who that official is, please, and let us know for this committee. * (10:50) Mr. Lemieux: Thank you for the question. I will certainly look to see who that was. I just want to reiterate that the person was called by the superintendent and a high-level person at MAST. The name, sorry, escapes me.

I should know the person, but I do not know his name at the moment, and two people off the negotiating committee. I cannot remember his name but off the representative from MAST. Again, there was a representative from MAST, from the parent organization, there was the superintendent and two people off the negotiating team, which made up the negotiating team for the school divisi on.

They agreed to go to mediation and they were the ones who expressed the amount of money that was necessary they felt, at least, to bring back to government, to notify government of what the gap was and how much they could cover themselves. Mrs. Stefanson: I wonder if the minister could tell us what the date of the Treasury Board submission was. Could the minister please inform us what the date was of the Treasury Board submission? Mr. Lemieux: I just asked my department to find out who the person was from the Labour Relations area. It is a Mr. Schreyer. He was the person who was contacted.

The Treasury Board submission went in near the beginning of June. The submission I signed was June 18. It does take time for Treasury Board submissions to go in. So I thank the members for the question. To reiterate, the employer group certainly wanted to go back to mediation, along with the union. Again the strike was concluded in a satisfactory way. It raises the whole question about the dispute that took place and is taking place in Prairie Rose. Prairie Rose is a school division that differs somewhat fro m Sunrise in the sense that they have not entered into mediation.

They have not pursued all their areas that are possible to them, so we wait to hear and I would advise that they do so.

September 18, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 819 Mrs. Stefanson: Just for clarification here, there was a Treasury Board submission made on June 18. Just waiting, could we– Mr. Chairperson: If the Member for Tuxedo can just wait a few moments until the minister has completed conferring with the authorities. Mrs. Stefanson: Just to clarify, Mr. Chair, the minister has just said that the Treasury Board submission was made on June 18 for a dispute that was settled on April 17? Mr. Lemieux: I thank the member for the question.

We are certainly just trying to confirm the time the submission was signed and so on. When the Labour Relations staff came back to government informing government of the need and the gap that was there, identified by the negotiating team from Sunrise, they were certainly looking to government for approval of whether or not government was certainly willing to assist in any way to help Sunrise School Division. They certainly raised that to us and they raised the whole issue about certainly other issues and other challenges they have had.

As a government, we took a look a this particular issue, and within my department I identified where the money was found, and within support to schools and the school grants and operating area, the money was there. In order to support this division that had this huge gap between anywhere from at least a 20% to 65% gap in salaries, the MAST representative as well as a couple of people from Sunrise and the superintendent on the negotiating team are the ones who identified how much money it was that they needed in order to harmonize salaries or their particular division. f Mrs.

Stefanson: I am just wondering: How could the minister announce on April 19–and I know there was a Free Press

article where the minister is quoted as saying we did set some money aside to help this division–a half million dollars of taxpayers' money to go to Sunrise School Division without Treasury Board approval? Mr. Lemieux: Certainly, when we were asked as government whether or not the intention was to support this gap that was there that was identified by the superintendent and a high-level person from MAST, we signaled our intention to support this. There is a process that has to be followed.

The money was identified where the money would come from, and there had to be a process to go through to access those dollars, and Sunrise School Division was very much aware of that. They were certainly notified of that, that there had to be a process to be followed in order to get confirmation from those dollars. We identified where there was money in order to assist this division that had such a huge gap and indeed we told the division that, yes, we were going to be very supportive of them but the proper procedure had to be followed. Mrs.

Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): I guess I would like to ask the minister: Who in his department did the analysis of the request and made the recommendation on the $428 000 commitment? What analysis was done before the 19th of April, and by whom in his department? * (11:00) Mr. Lemieux: Yes, I have been advised that the Labour Relations people certainly looked at all the options and the analysis was looked at by them, dealing with and working with MAST and the negotiating team of the Sunrise School Division. Mrs.

Mitchelson: So the minister is telling me then that the Labour Relations Division or secretariat made the decision working with Sunrise. But the question is: Who worked with his department officials? Obviously, when you are looking at a significant amount of money like $428,000, almost half a million dollars, out of the minister's own department, and this is taxpayers' dollars, who in the Department of Education, in his department, was involved in the analysis of the amount of money that was approved for Sunrise?

Or is the minister telling me that the Labour Relations secretariat makes those decisions on behalf of his department? Was anyone from his department involved?

820 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 18, 2003 Mr. Lemieux: As I mentioned, the Labour Relations people who provided that analysis to the department, we accepted that. They were working with a negotiating team. They worked with individuals there from the division. We knew what the gap was, 20 percent to 60 percent approximately. It varied depending on who the employees were. That analysis was done from the labour people who were working closely with the Sunrise people. They provided that to our department, the analysis.

We certainly were able to identify the area where the funds were available and will continue to work with school divisions throughout the province. You have not only, as I mentioned, Sunrise, but you have Prairie Rose, also a school division who is currently out on strike now. That particular division has not gone to mediation but also has not requested in writing or verbally any assistance that is necessary at this point.

We would ask them to go through the steps and follow the steps that are available to them through the Department of Labour, and we would expect that that would take place prior to asking us for any involvement or assistance. Certainly, that is up to them. Hopefully, they will resume negotiations shortly and the children will be able to get back to school. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the minister, and I think what he is telling me is that the Labour Relations secretariat recom- mended to the Department of Education that they find $428,000.

My question would be: Did his department or anyone in the financial side of his department look at the recommendation that came from the Labour Relations secretariat, and did they do the financial analysis and recommend to the minister that he could announce that without Treasury Board approval? Mr. Lemieux: As I mentioned, staff from the Labour Relations–Compensation area are working closely with the Sunrise School Division.

That is where, as I mentioned before, those numbers were identified coming out of that negotiating team in meeting with and supplying information why that was necessary and working with the government staff person. So government made a commitment to be of assistance to that school division and certainly were there.

We were of assistance to that school division. * (11:10) Now the school division, we are very much aware that even though the money is identified and there was money to be able to go to the division that there was a step of course to go to Treasury Board and to get approval from Treasury Board with regard to getting the formal approval. They understood that, but my understanding, government, whether it was the government of the Conservative Party in the 1990s, governments make commitments with regard to assistance to help people.

When the information was passe d on from staff, government staff that worked with MAST and that negotiating team, that information was brought back. So we were able to certainly find the finances from within the Department of Education. We were able to confirm that. Mrs. Mitchelson: Was the Minister of Education directly involved with discussions with the person from the Labour Board secretariat in the amount of money that was required from his department, as identified by the Labour Relations secretariat? Was the minister directly involved in discussions with the Labour Board secretariat? Mr. Lemieux: Mr.

Chairperson, just wanting to touch on a couple of things. One, again the letter that came from the Sunrise School Division to government asking government to be involved. I am sure now members opposite certainly agree that an invitation was made, they let us know what the discrepancy was and they let us know that there was that 15% to 60% disparity and the huge amount that they would have to tackle as a school division. We provided them with $50 per student in order to assist them.

What happened was that particular amount amounted to, I think it is, I stand to be corrected, but I believe it is around $130,000 for the division. Some divisions receive 700-and-so thousands. I am just trying to clarify what that amount is. Sunrise School

September 18, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 821 Division received $246,255. That amount, obviously, was not enough for them to narrow the gap and they did not have the finances to narrow the gap. You have other divisions like Louis Riel, for example, that received $742,401, and they were able to settle their agreement without asking or having any kind of disruption to their school division. Those dollars that funded, that $50 per student, obviously for some school divisions, appears to be enough. Other school divisions have a gap.

When the Sunrise School Division asked me and asked government, would we like to enter into a discussion relating to the disparity, that they wanted to talk about this huge gap that they had, we knew from the get-go that they would have a great deal of difficulty. I am sure that members opposite do not begrudge that amount of money going to the school division. I do not know if that is a question whether or not they do not want that money to go there or currently do not want the money to go there.

We certainly made a commitment to Sunrise that we would follow through with it, even though the money certainly had to go through the proper steps to get confirmation that it was there. We certainly want to work with Prairie Rose or any other school division in the province of Manitoba. We have made it quite clear, I believe to all divisions, that we expect the money to go back into the classroom. You have got a number of school divisions that are around the province that have cut back. For example, three school division offices, three superintendents and now they have one.

I think most of Manitobans would understand the basics of that about the savings that are involved through amalgamation. Those savings would go back to the classroom. We are not just talking about the financial savings. We never just wanted to just talk about that. I know we are talking about the financial end right now of one particular school division. The members opposite wanted to just zero in on one school division, and I am trying to tell them that the challenge is slig htly greater than that.

Government has a difficulty because when you have Louis Riel and then you have Sunrise, two divisions that one rule, one city and they are amalgamated, one is able to take care of their negotiations by themselves without talking to government per se and asking for assistance. The goals of amalgamation overall, and I think it is important that we put it on the record because we are talking about amalgamation here.

We are not discussing and members opposite raised the benefits of amalgamation. * (11:20) Essentially, there were a number of themes to the goals of amalgamation: Modernization– most divisional boundari es were created when transportation communications were much more difficult in the late fifties and sixties. The idea about efficient and responsible use of resources to assure the parents and taxpayers that the funding for schools was being used effectively and efficiently. We know that there were a number of efficiencies, whether it is bulk buying and so on that divisions have made use of.

The financial viability to ensure long-term financial viability of divisions. Some divisions such as Duck Mountain were struggling to exist with a very low assessment base. All of that, whether it is depopulation, lower students, these are the real challenges that amalgamation was to address. You have low enrolment, which I have mentioned before is to ensure that divisions have an enrolment base that is sufficient to support and to ensure access to good quality programming and, as well, quality educational and clinical resources.

A lot of divisions from around the province were expressing and had expressed through the 1990s, even up to Norrie and when the Norrie report came out, and the Norrie report dealt with a couple of different areas which I will touch on a little later––but the balanced and moderate approach to amalgamation was key for us as a government. We felt all along to balance the need for larger, more viable divisions in certain areas and the need to respect local autonomy and have regard for distances travelled by students in rural areas and so on.

What we are talking about is trying to get a more balanced approach to education and better services all around. There may be other divisions that would benefit by amalgamation, but I have mentioned before, however, that the above changes also strike a

822 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 18, 2003 balance between action on amalgamation and the capacity of the department and the divisions to achieve amalgamations with a minimum of disruption to the system. So amalgamations in all likelihood, as I have mentioned, probably will take place down the road, but the problem with it is that amalgamation would not happen in a gov- ernment-directed amalgamation.

I believe that amalgamations will voluntarily amalgamate because of all the reasons I mentioned pre- viously, and I think a lot of divisions realize that amalgamations will modernize Manitoba's education system and yield long-term benefits to children.

A lot of divisions right now that have declining enrolments are looking at what they can do and the challenge for a government in years to come, whether it is four years, eight years, twelve years down the road, is they will be faced with these challenges because divisions, many of them, are already discussing informally amongst themselves what they can do about declining enrolment and so on. The idea for our Government, anyway, to create opportunities for children by freeing up resources to go back into the classroom to support education was a key one. The previous Minister of Education mentioned this.

He said that one of the main reasons that those efficiencies and what those efficiencies would bring to the amalgamation system or process would benefit children in the classroom. The idea behind those efficiencies was if there were any funds found by reducing three superintendents down to one, those dollars would go into the classroom from the division and not be a savings per se because they would be going back into the classroom.

So you take a look at the reduction of administrative and duplication of costs, reduces the number of trustees over a hundred, focus resources into the classroom for the benefit of children, and essentially our plan was to have a balanced and moderate approach that would not create undue disruption within the system. And I think we have achieved that so far. We still have some way to go in different areas but essentially we have achieved that. We are looking certainly at more balanced equalization of resources between divisions as a result.

We have heard already in River East Transcona where they have been talking about how Transcona was not as technological as River East. So what they are trying to do is trying to address that. I know that we are going to be seeing more of that across Manitoba and seeing whether or not those types of efficiencies are really going to work or whether or not government has to sit down and have more discussions with the different divisions and to determine what that is.

A couple of further comments I would like to make just with regard to amalgamation so we are clear that amalgamation and the importance of it was that changing population enrolments in rural Manitoba have meant that a number of divisions have had a decrease in student numbers. Now we know that BSE has hit rural Manitoba more so than the urban areas. We know that drought this summer has been horrendous. So what we are trying to do is we are trying to determine whether or not–I mean, as a government, you have the Minister of Agriculture (Ms.

Wowchuk) and others who are working extremely hard, and the Premier, to not only make sure that the border is open, but also trying to ensure the long-term viability of farms and agriculture in Manitoba. As a result, of one cow, one animal, in Alberta, you have the border being shut down. As a result, you have this impact that has been placed onto the farming community of Manitoba.

Those people that are involved in agriculture, I spoke to a person last night that talked about how fortunate they are to have a mixed-farming operation and that the crops for them are certainly a wa y better than average ield for them, so they are going to be okay. y Many others are talking about would they actually be transferring their farms to their children.

There is some hope and light at the end of the tunnel that there is a light at the end of the tunnel for them and there is some hope for griculture and the beef industry in the province. a But, again, the impacts are felt in rural Manitoba, and the spinoffs that people often talk

September 18, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 823 about, all the jobs in communities within Manitoba and throughout the province, have a real impact on the rural community. With the combination of education, you have health care, family services, a lot of the larger departments, you are trying to determ ine where dollars would best be spent. It is a real challenge for any government because of the challenges we have had. We have had forest fires, drought, and BSE this summer. Just those three alone and the combination of that triple whammo in the province of Manitoba is unbelievable.

I am trying to think back to when the previous government would have ever had that triple whammo. They had the flood in '97, which was terrible for any government and for the province of Manitoba overall.

We had not seen a flood like that in a number of years and the Government was certainly hard pressed to try to deal with that, but when you have a triple whammy where you have forest fires, BSE and drought happening this past summer it is something that certainly has to be noted, because we as a government have to deal with that. * (11:30) You have to deal with amalgamation and you have to deal with the positive side of the amalgamation but the challenges that are there as well. We feel that as a government we have been able to deal with that in a satisfactory way.

I know the members opposite asked about the process. I know that governments make commitments before formalized approval pro- cesses are completed on occasion. Informal approval is secured in a variety of ways. The formalized approval was completed before any expenditures were made. That is important to note. Certainly Sunrise received a cheque from us but they received a cheque only after formalized approval was completed, before any expenditure was made. Again to make that point, there is a process in place.

Sunrise was very much aware of that process and they were very pleased that we as a government stepped up to the table to take a look at this huge gap in wages and the challenges they faced. I might add that the previous government, these wage discrepancies have been around for a while. We hear anecdotally that–you have a lot of divisions, whether they be in rural Manitoba, northern Manitoba or urban–there is certainly a varying scale of varying wages, depending on the division and depending on their circumstances.

It is a huge challenge because when you are talking about harmonizing salaries many things go into that. When you have a negotiating committee from Sunrise, representatives of Sunrise, participating with an official from MAST and their superintendent coming to government to say, look, this is a reality, this is a gap that we have, providing information of why they cannot meet that gap and then the recommendation coming back to government. It is important that we had to deal with that because, a strike, the children were out as I mentioned.

You had the board chair cleaning toilets and people doing all kinds of work within the school system. You had the mechanics and the bus drivers were out. Then you had the secretarial, the teachers' assistants I believe and the secretarial component also going out. The Sunrise School Division's negotiating team as well as MAST, an official from MAST, as well as the superintendent made a strong case to government about the need to participate. Mrs. Mitchelson: I have a very simple direct question to the minister. I am not sure he should have to consult with his staff to answer this question.

Did he direct his department to find the $428,000 for Sunrise School Division? Mr. Lemieux: Just to clarify one point, it was $112,000 for this year that was necessary for the first year. Mrs. Mitchelson: Did the minister direct his department to find the money for Sunrise School Division? Mr. Selinger: We certainly are looking at options and I asked the department to look at options that were available to us. Mrs. Mitchelson: Under whose advice did the minister then ask his department to find options?

824 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 18, 2003 Point of Order Mr. Chairperson: Point of order. The Member or River East, on a point of order. f Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, on a point of order. I asked a very direct question to the minister about how the information was communicated to his department. Now he has spent over three minutes, and I have timed it, asking his officials for advice. I think he is putting them in a pretty uncomfortable position when he is asking them to provide answers on how he gave direction to them. The question was very straightforward.

It was to the Minister of Education. The question again was: Who did he discuss the money that was to go to Sunrise School Division with before he directed his department. His department does not have the answer to the question. Mr. Chairperson, this is about ministerial responsibility and accountability. I feel badly for the bureaucrats in the Department of Education who are having to try to answer or give advice to the minister. The question is directly to the minister.

I would hope that rather than the stall tactics that he is using he would be accountable and he would answer the question directly and take responsibility for his department and his actions. Mr. Chairperson: On the same point of order, the Member for Dauphin-Roblin. Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin-Roblin): Mr. Chairperson, on the same so-called point of order, I find it interest ing that the Member for River East and other members across the way have over and over and over in these Estimates demanded better answers from the minister. They have questioned the minister's truthfulness.

They have questioned the minister's answers time and time again. I would think that the Member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) would want to give the minister the opportunity to consult with people, to consult with the people in his staff who can advise him on these issues.

Quite frankly, the minister should be encouraged to consult with whoever he needs to to make sure that the members opposite are served in the best way to et the information that they asked for. g I think it is absolutely incredible that the Member for River East would, on one hand, demand that the minister gives good answers and, on the other hand, try to score some political points by suggesting that the minister is putting his staff in a tough position. The minister has very credible– [interjection] I think that the Member for River East may not want an answer to this.

She does not want to hear from the minister, who is advised by his staff. She does not want me to be making the case against her point of order, which I submit is not a point of rder. It is hardly even a dispute over the facts. o I think it is the frustration being expressed by the Member for River East because the minister is getting good information forward and is not maybe providing the ammunition that the ember for River East may want to hear. M I would advise, Mr. Chairperson, that this is not even so far removed, it is not even close to being a point of order.

It is just an expression of frustration on the behalf of the Member for River East. Thank you. * (11:40) Mr. Chairperson: I thank the Member for Dauphin-Roblin. Thanks for your contribution. The length of time the minister has used to consult his staff might be a point, but not a point of order. Therefore, I rule it is not a point of order, and we should not use a point of order to ask a question, dispute th e accuracy of facts or clarify remarks or raise a further point of order. I hank you for that. t * * * Mr. Chairperson: We will continue. Mr. Lemieux: Mr.

Chairperson, I appreciate some of the points that are being made. I just want to make sure the answers I am giving to the members of the Opposition are accurate, to the best of my knowledge, which I have been dvised are accurate. a I just want to say to the Opposition. They ask questions; they may not like the answers they are receiving becaus e it does not suit their question. They are certainly entitled to ask whatever question they want. It may not be the

September 18, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 825 answer they are looking for and that is too bad, but that is not the circumstances. I went through the process of informing them and telling them about, not only that government has a role to play with regard to acting in the public interest in labour disputes, especially where there is a possibility of a strike action, but also Labour Relations, as a mandate to monitor labour issues throughout the province and act in the public interest.

So Labour Relations also, at the request of parties, can facilitate mediation and conciliation services and through that process become engaged with the parties involved. When we passed amalgamation legislation, we assured the school divisions we would work with them through the process on wage disparity and other issues. On March 24 we received a letter from the chair of the Sunrise School Division who wrote me expressing concerns about the disparity in wages between the two divisions.

Then you have a strike that happened and then the government official from the Department of Finance who works in com- pensation asked both CUPE and Sunrise, a representative from MAST, the superintendent, two other reps, if they were prepared to go to mediation and they agreed. The Sunrise School Division representatives identified wage dis- parity issues and the amount required. That is where the dollar figure came from. They are the ones. The employer is saying where the gap was: Here is the gap. We can cover two-thirds of it. The other third we cannot cover. Here are the reasons for it.

It is sala ry, and so on. They made a case why they were unable to do so and why they were unable to cover that gap. You have a situation where both parties wanted to bet back to mediation and they did get back to mediation. They went to mediation. The mediation commenced and then the parties concluded their tentative agreement. You have a situation that was resolved satisfactorily, yet the Opposition is jumping up and down and screaming about monies being flowed to the school division. Now they have said, oh, no, now they do not begrudge the school division getting the money.

They are saying, oh, no, that is not the case. We understand there is a huge wage difference there. That is not the point, they are saying. The money is fine. Give them the money. As the Minister of Education, we are taking a look at other school divisions around the province of Manitoba that are being faced with these challenges, not only the amalgamated divisions but all divisions. Some divisions, you had someone express views. A person from the municipality said that, yes, they collected the money but they might not forward that money on to the school division.

The reason for that was because of BSE or somehow it related to drought. We know those elected officials have a responsibility and they know their responsibility as well. I know Garry Draper, the president of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, commented that he felt and said repeatedly, I understand, that people know what their legal obligations are and that taxes have to be collected and that is how the system runs and that is how the education system functions. That is what makes Manitoba a very good province with regard to education and the quality of education our children are getting.

This fall the Opposition raised another issue with regard to taxation and taking tax off of land for education and the funding of education. The dilemma with that is that I do not believe they did their homework. They did an announcement at the beginning of an election campaign without having really thought it through, their question on what are they going to do about art, music and phys ed. They had a lot of troubles answering that. Where are the cutbacks going to happen? What are these school divisions going to do?

The challenges around Manitoba and throughout Manitoba are great with regard to financing education. We as a government provided last year around $23.5 million, $23.8 million to school divisions, about a 2.8% increase. We have always been able to fund the education system at a rate of economic growth. We are providing financial support to the divisions.

826 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 18, 2003 When it comes to collective agreements and collective agreements that are expiring, you have Prairie Rose School Division which right now is in a labour dispute. There is a strike going on. The difficulty there is that you have a division that I believe conciliation was involved. They certainly have mediation at their disposal. They have not used that yet. We have not received a letter like we did from Sunrise asking us to meet and discuss this wage discrepancy. The dilemma is that, for us, we want to see the children back in the classroom.

We want to see the employees back at work. We want to see them resolve their concerns in an amicable way because they have to work with each other and have to live in those same communities. Overall, for the department, when you are looking at all the amalgamated divisions and you are looking at the other divisions and the challenges they maybe face, financially it is a real challenge for the department. With regard to finances, as I mentioned to Sunrise, we were able to identify, I asked the department to look at the options, look at what we have with regard to options within our Budget.

Staff advise me that looking at the school grants and opera ting grants area was an area where funding could be found, $112,000 for this year. As a government, I think we may have other challenges ahead of us. You have other divisions that have collective agreements expiring. We have discussions that are ongoing, but we are going to have more discussions with MAST, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, to try to talk to them about what is down the road and what is going to happen with regard to collective agreements.

We have consistently said that we are supportive of school divisions, we are supportive of amalgamated divisions. We will sit down and talk to them about all their issues. We will discuss, whether it is dealing with harmonizing salaries, whether it is dealing with pensions, whatever their challenges are. * (11:50) So, for us as a government, I think what we have done is we have been able to successfully, I think, make the school divisions understand that we are willing to work with them and will attempt to do whatever we can. We will sit down with them.

There are no guarantees as such what will take place, but we have to hear what they have to say about the challenges that they face, the dilemma being you have so many different divisions in Manitoba and different gaps–15 percent, I think it was, to 60 percent it stated in the letter. You have Louis Riel School Division who were able to sit down and settle their differences, I have been advised, without writing a letter or contacting us as a department.

You have Prairie Rose now, who has, I understand, a bit of a wage gap, up to about 20 percent I understand, not as great as Sunrise, but they feel that they have the capacity to deal with their own situation without writing a letter to government. They have not pursued mediation as yet. That is still an option for the union and for the employer. We would want them to make sure that they look at all their options. We have always said that we are there. Where there would be issues around wage disparity we provided $50 per student to assist in cost s.

Now this varies from division to division because it is based on per student, where that amount of money, that $742,401 in Louis Riel appears to have been sufficient to get them through the hurdle of their negotiations. I am not privy to that; I have no idea what has transpired and nor should I, but you have other school divisions like Prairie Rose School Division, for example, which will receive $40,000 for three years at $120,426. Now that money has to help them with regard to harmonization, with regard to salaries and other things.

Plus we have also given other breaks to school divisions trying to address possible declining enrolment and other areas. I will not talk about strobe lights today on buses. I just want to make a comment quickly on that. It is interesting. I received a letter from the member from Springfield about bus safety about a week ago in wanting the department somehow to address bus safety because of the highway, I believe it was Highway 15, Dugald Road, was getting a tremendous amount of traffic. He reassured the parents and people he was writing on behalf of that bus safety was a key issue for

September 18, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 827 him, but yesterday attempted to raise a point of order somehow that strobe lights was not part of the discussion. All I was trying to make a point to him is that we are doing a lot for school divisions, and in that capacity, strobe lights and providing funding for strobe lights was just one area of safety. That is the only point I was trying to make. I just want to get back to funding of school divisions and to talk about that. I will try to conclude my remarks as soon as I possibly can. These comments I am trying to get on the record, Mr.

Chairperson, because when we are talking about amalgamated divisions and the amount of dollars the government funds and the disparity between different divisions, I am just trying to state to the Opposition and to others that in some cases there is a great divide. So, for us as a government and a department, we have been looking at that and looking at all the options about where do we go with regard to not only Prairie Rose, but there are other divisions that are going to be concluding their collective agreements. Some have already. Some are going to continue.

They are not in a strike yet, but what we are hoping to certainly do is to be able to assist them in any way we can. Now, there are many benefits with regard to amalgamation. I have stated that repeatedly. Members opposite may dispute that. I mentioned yes, a lot of their questions are being asked, I guess there is no wrong question, but something I would point out to them is that the answer that they receive may not be the answer they want, but it is the answer.

We have laid out today on how government received feedback and so on, on the wage disparity, on how MAST asked for a meeting to discuss and had this meeting with two people from Sunrise on a negotiating committee, their superintendent, and someone at a high level from MAST in their Winnipeg office on Provencher participated in that meeting and made a case why to go back to mediation that it was necessary that both parties go back to mediation. They were agreeable, but that money was the real key issue.

So I just want to reiterate that the letter inviting us and asking us to participate–then, you had discussions also with our people from staff from Labour Relations–Compensation area. People were able to look at a package that might be able to work, but of course for us, as a government, the portion of dollars that we had to allocate or look at, $112,000, we looked at the Support to Schools area and primarily the Schools Grants or operating grants area. Then I asked the department to look at options. We are continuing to look at options because of the finances that may be needed.

We cannot say for certain, because some divisions are asking for assistance and others are not. So I would just say, Mr. Chairperson, that a lot of these issues are very, very important to put on record to show that what our Government has done, to be very supportive of amalgamated divisions, to make them work and to understand that there may be more support needed in days or years to come, but the Government will be there to help school divisions, not only financially, but any other way we can. Mrs. Stefanson: The minister talked about the importance of following process and procedure in this whole issue.

We have a situation here where the minister announced almost half a million dollars of taxpayers' money to settle a labour dispute in Sunrise School Division without Treasury Board approval. My question for the minister is: Do es he feel that the ppropriate process took place here? a Mr. Lemieux: The member is correct where I talked about Prairie Rose, where they have mediation available to them and through their dispute that they had conciliation. I understand that broke down last Thursday or so. Now, of course, they are out on strike and they have a process to follow.

Mediation is certainly an open option to them. If they are at loggerheads I would hope that they would look at mediation and use that option to be able to sit down and discuss their challenges together. Governments make commitments and have before the formalized approval process is completed. On occasion informal approval is secured in a variety of ways. The formalized approval was completed before any expenditure was made. I hope that answers the question for he member. t Mrs. Stefanson: So the minister feels that it is appropriate for the Government to promise half a

828 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 18, 2003 million dollars of taxpayers' money without Treasury Board approval two weeks prior to an election call when the Treasury Board approval did not come until after the election took place. My question for the minister: What would have happened here if you had lost the election? Clearly this is a very serious issue. You made a promise here that you had no ability to keep in that event. So I would like the minister to answer that, please. Mr. Lemieux: Well, once again, just to reiterate, I guess I am a little bit confused.

I guess that this gets to the point where the Opposition truly is not supportive of this money going to Sunrise. We hear it here today that they are not supportive of that money going, because here they are saying that, should the results have changed, they would not have provided that money to Sunrise and that strike would continue to be going on and so–[interjection] Mr. Chairperson is correct, I do not want to get too carried away, and I should not be putting words into members' mouths. I stand corrected. I really do.

I apologize for that, but I just want to say that governments make commitments before the formalized approval process is completed on occasion. The informal approval is secured in a variety of ways, and the formalized approval was completed before any expenditure was ade. m Mr. Chairperson: The time being twelve noon, I am interrupting the proceedings. The Com- mittee of Supply will resume this sitting this afternoon following the conclusion of Routine Proceedings. Thank you. TRANSPORTATION AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES * (10:00) Madam Chairperson (Bonnie Korzeniowski): Good morning.

Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This morning this

section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will continue with consideration of the Estimates with the Department of Transportation and Government Services. When the committee last met there had been agreement to have a global discussion in this department. The minister has asked to respond to the last question of the day before. Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have a new critic out here today. The Member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire) had asked yesterday on hiring of a few people in the deputy chief's department.

Just to answer the question, Wendy Van Loon was hired through the standard Civil Service competition process. Rob Marrese was appointed upon graduation from the management internship program. The program is administered by the Civil Service Commission and staffed on a competition basis. It is an excellent program. We have seen a lot of people come in to the system through that program over the last five or six years and the program works quite well. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): I have a question for the minister. It relates to the intersection of highways 15 and 206. I will try to get my directions right.

I believe it is on the southwest corner. I had a meeting with the fire department of Springfield. What it is, they have one approach coming off of 206, which is a provincial highway. What they do is they pull off and they loop, they have to back into a station where they pump water into the fire truck. What they did is that they approached the department to see if th ey could put a second culvert onto 206 to have a second approach. What they would do is take their fire trucks, pull up to the hydrant, loop around back onto 206 and go to the fire.

What it would do is it would cut about four to five minutes off the time because what they have to do right now is that they have to back in. It makes it a little bit more difficult, especially when we are heading into the cold winter season. Basically, what they have right now, it is not a public approach, so it is not really an approach as such. It is for emergency vehicles only. Because there are not fire hydrants in most of Dugald and the surrounding areas, I think they

September 18, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 829 were saying it is about a six-mile radius they are looking at. It covers Dugald and the surrounding area, about a six-mile radius. It is to supply water in case of a fire and in particular when it is in the wintertime where they cannot access any kind of a pool or a pond or anything. They approached the minister's department, I think that would have been out of Steinbach, and they were turned down. They felt that was odd because the R.M. is willing to cover the cost. It is not a cost item to the department.

The department felt they just did not want another approach on 206. They stated clearly it would be emergency vehicle access only. It is a loop that would take place. Is it possible for the minister to look into this? They explained to me that this is very urgent. It is for emergency vehicles only, and it would be posted as such. They think this is something that should be done and they were surprised they had been turned down on it. Can the minister, would he be agreeable to look into it and see if this could be resolved? This is not a cost item to the department.

This would all be taken care of locally, but I think the minister, probably more than anybody here at this table, would understand the urgency of an issue of getting water to a fire in appropriate time. * (10:10) Mr. Smith: I would like to thank the Member for Springfield (Mr. Sc huler) for raising the issue. Obviously, that is a concern for citizens in a community to have a quick response by their emergency vehicles. The intersection itself in that area, I am sure the member knows the area well. Through that area is quite a busy intersection.

Obviously, safety is a huge concern with the Province with the ingress and egress onto certain areas, ertainly, around busy intersections. c Highways is heading toward a policy of trying to limit access obviously onto provincial trunk highways and onto roads and systems and looking at ways to eliminate the amount of approach and approach roads onto access in provincial highways. The possibility of an internal road system could be developed possibly working with the municipality and working with the folks in the area. Safety is the No. 1 priority for all travelling Manitobans on a highway system.

It is something we would, certainly, be willing to sit down with the community, have a look at, usually the best solution comes from the community on what is possible, knowing the area themselves. Certainly, we would be willing to sit down and have a good look at what is possible and what we can do to improve. As you mentioned, speed is what they are looking for, to be able to get in and get out very quickly. Maybe there is an approach we can take with safety in mind and working with the community to get that done. Mr.

Schuler: Just a little bit more information to the minister and his department: 206 going north is where the bulk of the traffic is carried; 206 heading south, that would then connect up to No. 1, does not carry nearly the same amount of traffic, because, if in dividuals are looking to access No. 1 coming from the city, they would then take the Perimeter. You have got a really nice highway. You connect up to No. 1, you have a turnpike, and you go east or west, owever you want to go. h It is not 206 south that is the traffic. That is sort of where they are looking at putting something on.

Again, it is not to add an approach onto the road. It is an emergency access only. There is one existing a pproach that exists already. They just want to finish the loop and just add an emergency access only. It is not like we have fires out in Dugald on a regular basis. It is just in the event of a winter fire in particular that they have quick access on and off. Again, it would be a restricted access addition onto the highway. Again, 206 from 15 going down to No. 1 does not carry the heavy load that you have from No. 15 going north. Again, I know it is always a concern.

You do not want to have access onto the highway every half a kilometre or every 50 feet. I understand that. In this case, because it is an urgent matter and it is a matter of safety, I would ask the minister again, he has endeavoured to do that, if he would just look into it.

830 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 18, 2003 Mr. Smith: I would like to thank the member from Springfield for raisi ng the issue. Certainly, it is something we would be more than willing to look at. I wonder if the member from Springfield could possibly supply the department details of who we would contact and how we could set up a meeting with those folks. If he could pass it on either later or give us some names today, we would be more than happy to look at it. Mr. Schuler: You know what, I will do that right now. It is Dave Roy, Deputy Chief, 80 Willow East, Oakbank, Manitoba.

Just for the record, that is "Oak Bank," two separate words. Canada Post has infuriated my community by putting those two together. Sensitive point. ROE 1J2. Telephone number I will give to the minister directly if you contact. I believe there was an official request made to the department which would have went to Steinbach, if I am correct. It should already be in the system, but, I think, they would appreciate if this could be done in a fairly timely fashion. Much appreciated. Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): I appreciate the minister taking a couple of moments for my colleague from Springfield.

There will be other members, as I said yesterday, coming in at various times for some questions and issues in their particular areas. I would like to just follow up a little bit on the questioning that I was proceeding with yesterday. I thank the mini ster for his answer in regard to the process he was going through in regard to new staff. I wonder if he could just reconfirm his answer in regard to the process they went through for hiring, whether it was appointments or a competitive process. Mr.

Smith: Yes, just on the staff I mentioned yesterday, into the deputy's offices, Wendy Van Loon was the standard hiring process through the civil service. Then, again, as I mentioned, Rob Marrese was done through the management intern program. Those two people were done through those venues. The other hirings are mainly done through a Civil Service competition process, but those specific ones we had talked about yesterday, that is the way they were done. Mr. Maguire: If we can move on. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I wonder if, as I have gone through the Estimates book here, Madam Chair, line by line, the supplementary, the minister could give me an indication of the total number of full-time employees that are in the department at this time. Mr. Smith: Just for clarification for the Member for Arthur-Virden, are we looking just on the Transportation side, or are we looking at Transportation and Government Services? Mr. Maguire: I would, certainly, like that collectively, but I would prefer it to be broken down by the departments: Transportation, Government Services, Emergency Measures. * (10:20) Mr.

Smith: We will run through in total, when we look at the total for the Department of Transportation and Government Services, we have 2913.92 FTEs. Starting with divisions and branches, on boards and committees, th e Manitoba Transport and Highway Traffic boards, there are four FTEs; Licence Suspension Appeal Board and Medical Review Committee, three FTEs; Taxicab Board is nine FTEs.

When you get into Government Services programs, Accommodation Development, we have 44.38; Workshop and Renovations, we have 46.60; Physical Plant, we have 355.09; Property Services, there are 11; Security & Parking, 96.79; Procurement Services, 37.60; Government Air Services, there are 78, which gives a total breakdown in Government Services programs of 669.46. We have, in the Emergency Measures Organization, 19. We get into Infrastructure Works Maintenance Program, we have 659.27. We have Mechanical Equipment Services of 196.50.

Construction and upgrading of the provincial trunk highways, provincial roads related projects, we have 329.75 FTEs. Work and Municipalities LGDs, Unorganized Territory, we have 25 FTEs to that particular division.

September 18, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 831 In the divisions of Administration and Finance, we have executive support of 12. We have Administrative Services, 11. We have Financial Services, 23. Human Resources service, we have 26.75. Information Technology Services, we have 40; Occupational Safety, Health & Risk Management, 7; and in the Lieutenant-Governor's office, we have 3.50, for a total of 124.25. In our highways and related programs we have Management Service of 10. Operations and Contracts, we have 44.5.

Bridge and Structures, we have 37, Transportation Safety and Regulatory Services, we have 74.31. Regional offices. In the eastern region, we have 50; southern region, we have 47; southwest region, we have 45; west-central region, we have 37; northern region, we have 30 and Other Jurisdictions, we have 14. Our Planning and Design, we have 29 FTEs; in Northern Airports and Marine Services, we have 77.73; Materials and Engineering, we have 38; Traffic En- gineering, we have 26; Policy and Planning, we have 28.5; and, in our Driver and Vehicle Licencing, we have 296.65.

In Government Services, in total we have 688.46, and I believe now I will let the deputy minister give you the names of all these people e have. w Mr. Maguire: The minister is quite perceptive. That was my next question. I think we will spare him the detail of that. Madam Chair, I wonder if the minister could give me any indication as to, now those are all full-time positions I understand, as to whether or not they are all full tim e or how many are part time. Mr.

Smith: Just for clarification, those positions are all full-time equivalent, so, obviously, during different seasonal times, you might have two people to fill a yearly overview of one FTE. But you might have more hirings in the summer season than you do throughout the year. Those positions are full-time equivalents. Mr. Maguire: I guess my question to the minister is: Can he indicate to me whether the non-seasonal, I guess the regular full-time positions are all full at this time? Are there vacancies in his department?

I guess what I am looking for is the number of vacancies that he may have in the department at this time. Mr. Smith: The vacancy rate right now in the department, if you take the two departments in Government Services in all FTEs that I read into the record, we are running about 180 vacant positions right now, 180.5. That is around 10% vacancy rate right now. Mr. Maguire: Can the minister indicate to me how that compares with some of the more recent years? Does he feel th at those are standard vacancy rates for his department? Mr. Smith: Just a response to the member from Arthur-Virden.

Normally, in most years, I guess, the average you could take is 7% to 8% vacancy, somewhere within that area. Right now it is a couple of percentages higher than an average year. Mr. Maguire: Can the minister just outline for me what the variance would be or why the variance of a couple percentages more vacancies at this particular time? Mr. Smith: The Province and the Government are managing their vacancies. Obviously, there are priorities in a lot of areas and, certainly, in the management of vacancy rates, other issues are adjusted with the Government's overall umbrella in funding.

Certainly, the balance of managing expenditures in the Government is something that we take very seriously. It is something that has to be done in most all departments and this department is not exempt from that. It is an area where, as crises come up from time to time, I know the member is well aware of some of the issues that we are all faced with right now and some of the crises we are having in rural Manitoba. Basically, it is a management exercise that the Government is doing at this time. Mr. Maguire: Certainly, Madam Chair, there are circumstances in which savings should be made in particular locations.

I guess I could be facetious and say to the minister that it probably should not be on No. 8 highway after today's headlines. But there are a number of other issues

832 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 18, 2003 in the province as well that need to be looked at. Can the minister give me an example of the, I assume, savings in value that would be attained from that extra 2% or 3% vacancy rate? * (10:30) Mr. Smith: The member has mentioned Highway 8 which was in the paper. I had the opportunity to drive that highway about 10 days ago, two weeks ago.

Although the highway has not had a lot of significant upgrading since 1990 when it had a sealcoat put on it at that time, the highway, in comparison to some of the other highways, certainly, I would suggest, is probably not one of the worst road systems in Manitoba, although it was indicated that it could have been. I think the member from Virden will see that, as his colleagues come in, they will all have a road system or a particular area in the province that they pick over the other, but, certainly, it is done on priority. As the member knows, we have seen a lot of work done in many parts of the province.

With the increase in the capital budget, we had a record year last year in the amount of programs and work that has been done in the province. Highway 8, as he mentions, certainly is something that the department is well aware of. It is something that on a priority basis was not able to be put into programming for this year or next year, but it is, certai nly, a concern. As the member knows, dollars that are taken in by the Province do go directly back into our road system with all revenues generated put into capital.

The 2020 Vision, certainly, in talking to people up in the area, had identified other systems and other roadways that, certainly, were a concern to them. It has been a great process. The member from Transcona, who had chaired that, had been up through that area and, certainly, heard from people up in that area that it was a concern. As we move ahead with our 2020 Vision, we are identifying Manitoba's concerns and problems, not only on the road systems but on the marine and, certainly, on the rail that we have in the province. So there are a lot more areas out there that, cer tainly, need to be addressed.

As the member knows, when we get $160 million or $170 million in taxes, the federal tax is taken out and we get about 4 percent, 6 percent back from the federal government. That does not take anybody with a pen and a piece of paper long to realize that we should be getting more of that funding back. I think it is something that we have made a priority in addressing to the federal government. We need more money put into our infrastructure in Arthur-Virden and southwestern Manitoba and northern Manitoba. We have increased our budget considerably.

The surplus, salary su rplus or gain we would have would be somewhere in the area of that percentage we had previously spoken about in the area of $3 million to $3.2 million. Mr. Maguire: Madam Chair, I would at this time like to turn it over to my colleague from Turtle Mountain. He has a few questions, and we will come back to this. An Honourable Member: I bet you have got a road worse than No. 8. Mr. Maguire: I will make some comments on No. 8 at a later time. Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Madam Chairperson, a couple of questions and a comment.

I do not know if the minister is aware of it, but, with the almost completion of Highway 3 this fall, one of the concerns that is being brought to my attention by the trucking industry is the fact that Killarney has become an island. Trucks are unable to access because of the ratings on the roads surrounding them. We have Highway 18 that runs south to No. 3. It is the connecting road to No. 3.

There is no access for any heavy trucking into that community which has probably become one the trucking hubs of that part of the province with the huge growth of the hog industry and the feed mill industry and the three new grain terminals that have been built there in the last five years. The request that I am getting from the trucking industry is: Will there be a completion of the connection on Highway 18 that joins No. 3 at Killarney and then on No. 3 to Cartwright?

September 18, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 833 That seems to be the stretch of road that makes it unable for the trucking industry to access the community. They are using secondary gravel roads and just destroying it. The municipality is starting to become agitated, the fact that their costs are being driven up.

I just wonder if the minister has any intention of declaring that six or seven miles of road that connects Highway 3 as RTAC- travellable, so that they can put the heavier trucks on it and if the minister has any plans on continuing the development of the completion of No. 3 which would include that strip of Highway o. 18? N Mr. Smith: I would like to thank the Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) for raising that question. I have spoken to a few municipal officials and folks from out in that area, and I know it has been a concer n that has been raised obviously.

The member had mentioned there is considerable work done out very close to Killarney and in the Killarney area with the high through-puts that we have out in that area and the lack of rail transportation that seems to be going out of the entire area of the southwest. The road systems are the main access now, and the trucks are heavier and heavier and heavier.

He is quite right that quite often what we are seeing is a lot of the trucks and the heavyweights going to the municipal roads, which is pounding, as the member mentioned, their roads down with, obviously, an increase in ost to the municipalities. c The work that was done on No. 3 right up to the intersection, up to 18, was, certainly, something that was positive for the area. It is not programmed right now, No. 18. As we mentioned before, the priorities in other areas, certainly, need to be addressed. It is something we are well aware of. It is something that I have been aware of.

It is something that, I think, we need to consider over the next few years to try to get it into programming and see what we can get for, certainly, some of the federal-provincial funding that has done so well and served the area well in that area. It is something we are of aware of. As I mentioned to the member, it is, I know, a priority for the area. It has been brought to my attention, and I know the member gets probably a lot of folks in the area, especially in the municipalities that are coming up with increased costs because their roads are getting beat up pretty bad in the area.

Number 18 is a paved surface. It is a good road for travel for lighter vehicles, but it is something we have not got programmed right now. It is something that we are considering and looking at, and we would like to make the connection as soon as we can. As I mentioned before, on some of the Prairie Grain Roads Program and things we have out there, I know the work that is in right now is, basically, the environmental assessments. In design considerations for it both on the junction of 18 south and the east-south connection on PTH 18, we are hoping to get that project moved ahead.

As we can, we will try to get that in. It is, certainly, something I am quite interested in looking at. * (10:40) Mr. Tweed: While I appreciate the comments of the minister, I am wondering if the minister would be prepared to–I do not want to use the word intervene, I am sure that there is a better word. We still have the problem that the trucking industry cannot access the community. What they are asking for is if it is in the minister's plans in the next few years. Is he prepared to change the rating of that road so that trucks can actually access the community? Mr.

Smith: I am sure the member can well understand that if we did change the rating of the road, we would have terrible destruction on that road and some break up. What I will say to the member is: I will consider that as a priority for our department over this next two years and, certainly, try to access co nsideration through the Prairie Grain Roads to get that stretch of road done. I know it is an important piece to the Killarney community and an important piece to that area and it is one of the ones that I will look at very seriously. Mr. Tweed: I thank the minister for those comments.

Again, I would just advise him that, I think, the roads are already being run on with heavier weights and, I think, the continuing

834 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 18, 2003 deterioration of that stretch of highway is going to continue. In fact, not having ever been on No. 8 highway, I would say that stretch of road is already in such a state of disrepair that it is going to become a safety issue, sooner than later. I would ask the minister to just maybe take another look and, I guess, see if we cannot move this process forward as quickly as possible. Again, the revenue that comes from that part of the province, I am guessing that a large part of it is because of the trucking industry.

I am told that there are approximately 25 to 30 truck loads of feed going in and out of that area at this point in time. They are using s econdary roads and they are destroying them. I suspect that the mu- nicipalities are soon going to be taking a harder stance on trying to prevent that traffic from travelling unless they can get some form of ompensation for the destruction. c The other question that I have for the minister is Highway 23. Are there any plans to continue the upgrades? I know it had been started and was moving westward. A couple of years ago there was a severe condition on the road.

We actually have a picture of a school bus that got stuck in the middle of the highway a couple of years ago during a wet season. I know the grades have been done on it; the shoulders have been done on it. I am just wondering if there are any plans in the minister's agenda for the continuing improvement of that highway. Mr. Smith: The member, on No. 3 mentioned and, I believe, that he is probably talking about the extension going to the east in through Mather and heading out through Cartwright, that area, that direction. [interjection] Sorry for the confusion.

From No. 18, I guess, through Ninette and into Belmont, up to Baldur, there is engineering work that is being done there. There will be spot improvements through that area, but there is nothing that is planned in the next foreseeable future in that area. Mr. Tweed: Madam Chairperson, I thank the minister for the answers. I have one comment, and maybe the minister and his department would like to file it away and perhaps consider it in the future. The minister talks about the reduction in rail line services. It is a problem and it is a big concern.

The suggestion that I have for the minister is to look at the rail line industry and determine or perhaps even suggest to the industry that those lines should not be torn up. I firmly believe at some point in time the light will go on, and we will go back to using the industry that is needed to move our goods east and west. I know the minister has no control over whether elevators open or close or where they decide to locate, but I think the minister could have some input in determining that rail lines should not be torn up for a period of time after they are abandoned.

The example I use is a rail line that was running north and south into the United States. A few years ago there was some interest in trying to re-establish that line only to find that it was torn up, salvaged and the huge expense of going back in there to rebuild it is not feasible. I do have a fear that if these lines are torn up, it will make it easier for the companies to continue to force provincial governments to increase their budgets on transportation highways without any form of compensation back to the provinces.

I think the rail lines have done a disservice to our communities by allowing these things to be torn up. I would suggest if the minister can use his influence or flex his muscles, I think there should be a long waiting period. I am not even sure what the length should be to not allow these tracks to be torn up, with the future hope that they will be used for the purpose they were. That is to move the heavy goods east and west in our rovince and in our country. p * (10:50) Mr. Smith: I thank the member from Turtle Mountain for his comments. That is something we can probably both agree on in principle.

Rail lines, I think, when I lo ok back, and the problem that was developed over the period of the last 15 or 20 years maybe, since deregulation, certainly, in the trucking industry, I think it has been a compounding effect, obviously, business practice and not something any one of us wants to interfere with on companies when they are making their business decisions. Certainly, we can have input on what we believe has impacts on public transportation and the rail line. Up through that area of Elgin and in along that line, we have had reduction from 275

September 18, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 835 carloads to 55 or 59 carloads of grain through that area. Most of it, as the member well knows, knowing his area, does head by truck into the high throughputs and just seems to be a way of modern life for transportation. The Member for Port age (Mr. Faurschou) well knows in his area it is happening, up by Arthur-Virden, the member that is here, as well. I think we have all seen that. Certainly, the amount of dollars needed to expend on highways for the upgrades now is incredibly expensive.

We are not seeing a transfer, certainly in recognition anyway, from the federal government as our transportation system begins to change and, as the member mentions, rail services decommissioned by non-profitable lines, in a lot of cases, to the owner of the railways. We are seeing that expense on our highway system. We are seeing it in every corner of every piece of Manitoba from every member who is sitting around this table. I believe that it is part of the responsibility of the railways from the closure of the railways. They were built, certainly, for heavy haul and heavy loads, and did a good job.

Our highways were not built for anywhere near the weights that are running on the highways now, as we have the bigger B-trains and larger truck configurations that are out there–the weights. The average farm even now is having semis with the large-haul operations. I think it is, obviously–I do not think, I know it is a problem on the highways system. I know it is a cost to taxpayers and expense and dollars to taxpayers. We are probably going in reverse. We have been, previous governments and our Gov- ernment, in the funding th at we are putting into highways.

We have an infrastructure deficit in the province that is developing year after year after year after year. Certainly, we need dollars into that system to not only improve and have a system that we are proud of but to just keep it stable where it is now. Any new construction that we all want to see moving ahead, not just staying in one spot, is very difficult and pressing for the Government. The member's comments on the railways, I think, are probably a very big piece in the destruction of our highways right across the nation. Meeting with other ministers in other provinces, it is well recognized.

It is something that needs to be taken ahead by all sides, all parties in the Government, to our federal counterparts to have them more inclusive in the game. I mentioned to the member previously that when we see our taxpayers' tax dollars, farmers and operators and just people driving their vehicles, giving our road taxes back into our highway system is not enough, we need a federal commitment into our highways system of more than 4 percent or 6 percent of the tax dollars that they are giving back to us. We do need to improve our road systems. It is, certainly, a point well taken.

I would agree with the member that railways have had a large impact on the destruction of our highways here in Manitoba. That, for a lack of a better term, is being passed on to the municipalities by using their roads and pounding their roads. I think we are in agreement on that.

That is where 2020 Vision, I think, and I know was out in the member's area, had a lot of, certainly, rural people and farm operators, producers, mentioning that if we do not soon make the connections and more dollars into a lot of our systems, it is costing them money in operations in having to drive further distances and having to take different routes than the shortest route possible. I would agree with the member; the railways are an important piece of our system. Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): My questions to the minister are specific to the city of Winkler.

I am sure that is no surprise to you and specific to Highway No. 32. Just to refresh your memory on some of the numbers of vehicles, the traffic- counts, that are out there, back in 1999 there was a joint effort done, wher e the Province and the local, at that time, the Town of Winkler, did a traffic count on Highway 32. I just wanted to, again, put on the record, this was back in '99. Since then, we have had Lode-King. Again, Highway 32 leads into the industrial park. So, Madam Chair, Lode-King has basically doubled their production. Meridian Industries has tripled their production.

Consequently, the numbers that I will give you have increased dramatically since '99. But, from Highway 32 to Pembina there has

836 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 18, 2003 been–at that time the traffic count was 13 667 vehicles per day; 32 in Mountain was 12 075; 32 in Roblin was 10 729; 32 in Stanley was 11 917. With that addition there are about 200 semis that go through the city of Winkler every day. Mr. Daryl Reid, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair Obviously, this is an issue of safety. It is an issue of moving vehicles north and south. Also, Highway 32 is the highway that leads towards the port of entry at Walhalla, another very, very busy

section of highway. The area that I am specifically looking at right now is the four-laning of the

section from Roblin Boulevard to the city's south Perimeter. The issue that I am bringing here today stems from, this was in the papers out there, but council not impressed with Highway 32 offer. That was following a letter that they had received from the department. Basically, I am going to read some of the concerns that were expressed at that time.

I would concur, at least the projects that I have seen previously that we have been involved with, that when there is a provincial highway and it goes through a city or a town that the sewage, that part of the infrastructure, is a responsibility of the community, which is not anything that they are arguing about, but that the responsibility of the paving of the highway and the upgrading of that

section is definitely a responsibility of the provincial government. This is a provincial highway, Highway 32. Just to put on the record here the response that was given and then the letter that was sent to the minister, I refer you to the letter of September 9. It says that work on PTH No. 32 by your department would be subject to a 50-50 cost- share arrangement.

In fact Winkler's share would be much more than 50-50, as we would be required to pay 100 percent of the upgrading of the drainage system, upgrading illumination, additional work of tying in the side streets, new sidewalks and relocating local infrastructure, water and sewer lines. My understanding in talking to the council and the mayor is that th ey are aware that there are some responsibilities that they have, but the response that they get back is that now on the highway itself, on the actual paving and the upgrading of that system, they have been asked to share 50-50 in that as well.

So, consequently their costs, the way I read it and the way they read it, are much, much greater. This would be precedent setting within the province. I guess I have got a number of questions here, but I would first of all like to refer you to the comments and the letter here and would seek your response regarding the costing of this project. * (11:00) Mr. Smith: I would like to thank the member for his comments. The Norquay Drive to the city limits, about 3 kilometres, 3.2 kilometres along that stretch, certainly I know, is a priority for the area.

The area, like many other parts of the province–things are fluid and things change. It has been incredibly successful out there. The member mentions the traffic flow increases and the amount of economic activity and evelopment that is happening out in that area. d The cost for that section, certainly, on numbers, and every year, I think the member would agree, something costs $1 this year, it might be $1.02 next year. Costs do increase year after year and the estimates, those costs are variables. It is about a $6-million project to complete that stretch of highway. It is, certainly, something that is optional.

If the community has a priority that they feel is a high priority need for their community and would like to move projects ahead, many times on a cost-share basis, those projects can be looked at and considered. Obviously, more projects with more dollars can be completed and done. It is not a priority by any means that communities have to come into that type of cost-share arrangement by any stretch of he imagination. t One thing is certain in a budget of up to $120 million in capital.

The member can pull his pencil out and soon jot down that when you have a $6-million project and one piece of 19 000- kilometre stretch of highway system in Manitoba, it makes a big impact and takes a big piece out of the Budget.

September 18, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 837 All jobs in the province are, certainly, prioritized by methods that have been used, certainly, by this department for a decade or better, and rightfully so. Safety is a priority and many other issues are taken into account, economic development needs and changes of highway systems and routes. These are taken into consideration. But a $6-million project, I am sure the member still feels that $6 million is a considerable amount of money and a large percentage, 5 percent of capital for an entire year for the Province of Manitoba.

So those types of projects, certainly, are being considered. I know that the land ac– quisition is going on, working with the town of Winkler on land acquisition on that particular project. That is being worked on. We are working with the community to try to consider that project as we can with the funding that is available. It is just an option that is put out to communities when you look at a 50-50 cost- sharing regardless of the size of the project to try to accommodate and move projects ahead for communities.

So, if the member feels that it is a priority for his constituency and that the folks in the municipality feel it is a priority, often those projects can be advanced in a quicker way. I think it is a good process. It is a way to get more work done throughout the entire province and, certainly, people within their communities know full well what is most important in their communities. The amount of allocated dollars we have increased. I have mentioned that before, but it is still nowhere near enough. Every member who can come in here will identify a project that is incredibly important to one

section of their constituency and community. We get to the projects as quickly as we can. It is, certainly, something that we will continue to work on with Winkler. We have a good relationship with them. We will continue to look at the project. Mr. Dyck: I appreciate that response. On the other hand, though, I think with my asking the question, I am saying, yes, this is our priority. Certainly, there are other issues and other concerns that we have within the area, but in the sense of priority, I understand the funding concerns that are out ther e, and that is why I am zeroing in on, basically, this one.

This is one of the big issues for the region. I should point out to the minister as well, and I know that he is aware of it, but this is the fastest growing region in rural Manitoba and has been for the last number of years. So consequently, as I said at the outset, it is not only that the flow of traffic is increasing, but it is also really a safety issue with the schools being located in that area. I would just encourage the minister and the department to look at this favourably and move this ahead as quickly as possible. One question, I do have. You indicated that the cost was $6 million.

That is the total cost of that project, right? Just to continue, the total cost is, well, I have the number of 5.5, but, as you say, that number can move. So it is 5.5 or 6. So then it is not quite accurate that this is the total cost for the Province. I mean, there is a cost- sharing already taking place when you look at sewer and water, which the city has admitted is their responsibility. Mr.

Smith: Just for clarification for the mem- ber, the numbers I have given–I know the number that is printed, you have printed in the books, about 5.5–the most recent numbers and updates on what the cost of the project would be re about $6.1 million. a The sewer and water are over and above that. Sewer and water are obviously a municipal responsibility and something that municipal does take into effect. Those co sts are incurred. I fully understand they are very expensive costs for a municipality to incur, but the estimate we have now, the most recent estimate is around the $6- million mark.

It just shows how prices will fluctuate on jobs, but, yes, the sewer and water is over and above. That is a responsibility of the municipality and a commitment they obviously ave to make to the project. h The member mentions Winkler and Morden. I fully agree, it has been an incredible success story, the accomplishments, and full kudos should go out to the people in that area on their development.

838 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 18, 2003 Often we have heard people say that sometimes you can be a victim of your own success. The growth in the region is phe- nomenal. It is great for Manitoba and a lot of other communities have taken note on how successful they have been and why, but it is a matter of a certain amount of dollars that we can expend and where those priorities are. I know this is a priority for the area and we will continue to work with the folks out there. We have a good relationship. Mr. Dyck: I appreciate those comments.

I guess I would just like to add to that, I was listening to the minister making comments regarding the contributions the Province is making federally and of course we are not getting our fair share of he taxes back, and so on. t I would like to submit that with the economic activity that is taking place within that region, maybe we need to look at making sure we put some of those dollars back in there as well, because there is a lot of economic activity and taxes that are being generated in that area that are contributing to the success, also, of the province.

I think, in full consideration of this, we need to look at the total package. I would really urge the minister and the department to look at this favourably and to do this sooner rather than later. This does need to be done. We do not want to stifle growth in areas of the province where it s taking place. i I would ask the minister: We have talked about the highway issue here, does he have a time frame, a time line as to when I could be expecting, or we could be expecting rather, that his project will be taking place? t Mr.

Smith: Just in response to the member, he is quite right, something we can both agree on, the successful enterprises that have happened throughout Winkler, Morden, that entire district, entire area have been recognized and I recognize them. I think a lot of folks in Manitoba recognize them, but I have also heard from people out there that, not only dollars into the region is important, but the entire road system for the distribution of their products and getting it out obviously to market is incredibly important to them.

Although that is a concern regionally and it is a legitimate concern to want improvements within your area, there is no denying that, but I have also heard from people within the industry, the trucking industry on the major concerns they have on distribution of their product to market is ery important. v We are trying to do that balance. I believe we are doing a reasonab le balance with the dollars we have to expend. Getting product to market is important, as I mentioned before. There are a lot of directions for Manitoba.

We hit some $87 million, as I recall from my Economic Development days, of potential customers, and out of Manitoba we want to have that as seamless and fluid as we can. We do try to take that into consideration. We try to take local communities' concerns into consideration nd have that balance. a I believe the balance, with the increase we have put into the Budget, is a small start. It is, certainly, a little over 16 percent on potential for capital and we need a lot more money in that system. I would look to the member to look for working with us and working with our community.

We, certainly, intend to sit down and try to advance all projects with the communities that have concerns. We will commit to try to work on this project along with a lot of other projects and prioritize them as we an with the dollars we have to expend. c * (11:10) Mr. Dyck: I appreciate that answer, but I would still like to know the time line in your capital roject budgets. What are we looking at? p Mr. Smith: As the member knows, we have a flow budget of projects and projects into the scope of a two-year rolling project. In the five- year project comparisons, this is not in there.

It is obvious from our 2020 Vision, with all the concerns that Manitobans have in the different areas and impacts on Winkler obviously being one of those factors. I think we will have a better understanding and idea after our 2020 Vision comes in with the impacts. As the member mentions, economic impacts, growth impacts, change in flow patterns, needs and wants of bridges and RTAC roads, which is very important to all rural Manitobans, certainly, getting their product out to their market.

September 18, 2003 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 839 We do not have a time line that I can give the member right now. I cannot put a time or a date on that other than to say that we, certainly, will have this in the mix. We will work with the community. Any relationships that I have had with municipal officials out th

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-1-09a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 1st hansardpdf 09a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3ee3234e558edb74dd8e1b2b076b70531cec8c84

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).