Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us from Red River College, Language Training Centre, 18 students under the direction of Ms. Lorna Hiebert. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Energy, Science and Technology (Mr. Sale).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.

Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): The federal-provincial APF agreement that is to be signed tomorrow will not even come close to helping the more than 12 000 families struggling through the BSE crisis. Aside from the fact that the APF funding is for all farmers in need and not just those affected by the BSE, the amount of money that will actually get out to the more than 12 000 families will be minimal, Mr. Speaker, compared to what is actually required.

Mr. Speaker, a cash advance program is needed and it is needed now. Will the Premier show some compassion to those families in need and will he issue the cash advance program today?

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we have a low-interest cash advance program now and we would advise members opposite that notwithstanding–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Doer: Notwithstanding the fact that the critic, the Agriculture critic, has different positions on the framework agreement over the years, we were very careful in trying to get some changes to that framework agreement. We were also, Mr. Speaker, very, very much in touch with the rural municipalities, the urban municipalities, the KAP organization, the cattle producers. In fact, I think there were about 20 organizations in a meeting where the advice we had to the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) was contrary to the advice that the Leader of the Opposition is giving us.

Mr. Murray: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member from Emerson clearly understands one thing. He has listened to producers and he understands they need a cash advance now. That is what he has been asking for. The APF agreement reportedly includes a clause that farmers will not have to pay the thousands of dollars in premiums that are usually required up front. Instead they will have that money due in the spring.

The Premier should understand that farmers who have not received a paycheque in months, who cannot pay their bills, who are struggling to feed and clothe their families, Mr. Speaker, they are not going to be in a position to pay the thousands of dollars in premiums a few months down the road. Delaying the pain, Mr. Speaker, will not ease the pain for those families. Can the Premier explain to the 12 000 farm families who cannot make ends meet and some who are in such desperate situations as we have heard they are considering suicide, can he explain to those people, where does he expect them to get the thousands of dollars to pay for the premiums a few months from now?

* (13:35)

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I recall the presentation from KAP over the last number of months, their concerns about the program. I remember the head of KAP said to us in front of the cattle producers and I was at the meeting with the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), said that you have made some changes that are positive, you have to sign this agreement, you have no other choice, it will allow for some cash to flow to the people most directly affected and their income with cattle producers. Their advice to us was different than the Leader of the Opposition. So the obvious advice we took was from the various farm organizations on this program because we knew that it is obviously a challenge, and we accepted the advice we received from the farm organizations in this regard.

Mr. Murray: The little money that will be available out of the APF to directly assist cattle producers is not even close to the amount that is required, Mr. Speaker. The APF funding, it is like a mirage to our cattle producers. At first glance it may appear to be real but when it gets to substance there is nothing there. We have families who are in crisis that are begging the Province. They are begging this Premier for support and help to try to rebuild their families. A cash advance program is what they are asking for. Will this Premier please show some compassion to those families in need? Do the right thing and flow a cash advance today.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, there is a low-interest cash advance program and there is a framework agreement that, as I recall it, Mr. Briese and Mr. Newton both recommended we sign.

Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, the most unfortunate and difficult part about what this Government is doing in relationship to BSE is that probably only about 10 percent or slightly more of the money that they are talking about will actually flow in terms of cash assistance to producers. Producers' families, frankly, are beginning to despair. They are looking at their neighbours and they are looking at their families and they are saying that we cannot carry on this way much longer. Now, with the APF, will this minister indicate when and what nature of money she believes will flow from this APF agreement?

Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The APF is an agreement that we worked long and hard with our producers in this province. We have a safety net committee that worked with us right along as we designed the program. As the Premier (Mr. Doer) has said, we got many changes into the agreement that were not there before we started this process, Mr. Speaker, and the federal minister has indicated to provinces that he will flow an interim payment to producers and he anticipates it will be about 50 percent of what they would be getting in their payment.

There is no doubt these are very serious challenges and that is why we have put $100 million in place in loan authority for people to take advantage of it and get the cash flow that they need to bridge them to the next stage and other programs that we have put in place.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, what the minister in that non-answer forgets to say is that there is about a 22% premium that is required in order to be eligible to receive money from this program. Now it is indicated that might not be due until spring but does she anticipate that that money will have to be brought forward in cash or are they willing to claw it back from possible assets that would come forward?

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the affordability of the program was one of the biggest challenges that we faced and one of the challenges that producers raised with us, and we got a change in the program in that. Instead of paying all the money the first year, the payments can be made over three years and, in fact, there are discussions with the federal government as to whether that has to be cash, whether there can be a note of credit.

We are in discussion with the federal government. Everybody recognizes that it is a very serious situation that producers are facing, Mr. Speaker, and that is why over $180 million is on the table. It is flowing to producers and we are working with those producers to get them through this difficult crisis.

The most important issue is to get the border open.

Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): It is within the purview of this Government to provide some bridge assistance. Provincial governments can act more rapidly and then they can talk about all of the hard negotiation they did and actually try and flow some assets in a time of crisis such as this.

* (13:40)

One rancher's wife said: I would be better off to leave this capital asset, go on welfare so I could have a life for my kids. Mr. Speaker, when will this minister recognize that cash flow is the problem? Cash advance is the only thing that can deal with this.

Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Again, Mr. Speaker, we recognize that the Opposition has changed their view. They sent out a letter saying that there should be a low-interest loan program or a cash advance. We put in a low-interest program and cash is flowing. Under that low-interest loan program cash is flowing to those people who have slaughtered their cattle, and we have put in place a drought assistance program to help people who have had to purchase or move hay or straw into their area.

We recognize how serious the situation is and we have put money on the table. Our money is flowing. There will be money flowing through the APF.

Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): The Hells Angels associates are currently representing themselves in court because their lawyers are asking for more fees from Legal Aid. Last week, the Hells Angels associates presented a motion for disclosure of the evidence against them. The Crown prosecutor was forced to give them the statements of witnesses and the videotape of Manitobans entering and leaving a convenience store taken before it was fire-bombed.

Now the Hells Angels, a criminal organization, has information which will compromise the safety and security of Manitobans. Will the Minister of Justice take responsibility for the safety and security of those witnesses?

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The member is well aware of the sub judice convention. There are matters of a criminal nature currently before the courts, but I would also urge the member to consider the facts. It is my understanding that his allegations are unfounded.

Mr. Hawranik: I am not asking the minister for details of what was related in court. I am only relating to those items that were reported in the newspapers. That is a feeble excuse. The minister has a responsibility to ensure the safety of Manitobans. He has let the Hells Angels get a stranglehold over the justice system in Manitoba.

Manitobans deserve answers. The safety of Manitobans who are witnesses in the Hells Angels trial–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot even hear the question. [interjection] Not speak louder. I ask the full co-operation of all honourable members so we can all hear the questions and the answers.

Mr. Hawranik: The safety of Manitobans who are witnesses in the Hells Angel trial has been jeopardized by the Minister of Justice and by his failed policies with respect to the funding of complex Legal Aid criminal cases.

Is the minister prepared to take any measures, any measures at all to protect these witnesses and their families? If he is not, what would the minister suggest that these witnesses and their families do to protect themselves?

Mr. Mackintosh: I know the members opposite want this Government to open even wider the taxpayer pockets to fund Legal Aid. That was part of their advocacy. But there is also a responsibility in funding Legal Aid to make sure that it fulfils its original purpose, Mr. Speaker, which was only to help alleviate, to help reduce somewhat the burden on lawyers in providing free services for the indigent. We are going to act in the interests of taxpayers as well as justice.

I just remind the member opposite that, Mr. Speaker, he is today asking for a minister to politically interfere in an ongoing criminal trial so at the next sitting he can stand up and demand a resignation.

* (13:45)

Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, the Hells Angels have been making a mockery out of this justice system. The videotape given to the Hells Angels that was taken in a Winnipeg convenience store includes the images of Manitobans coming and going to and from that convenience store, and this was part of the disclosure to the Hells Angels associates. How would the minister feel if one of his children or his spouse was included in that videotape? Probably no different than any other Manitoban.

Manitobans are outraged that this tape of information was given to the Hells Angels. Why has this minister failed to protect the security and the safety of Manitobans?

Mr. Mackintosh: As I reminded the member in Estimates, Mr. Speaker, when evidence is provided in any case to counsel for an accused, that information would usually be shared with the accused in any event.

But, Mr. Speaker, the point that I have to make to the member is he should perhaps get his facts straight about the disclosure and the whole underpinning of his questions. I also conclude by reminding the members opposite and the critic, in particular, that this is a matter that is under the supervision of the courts of this country.

Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, a Manitoba court adjourned for the thirty-second time a plea motion for a person accused of distributing 3600 child pornography images. Under the Minister of Justice's watch, this accused has been able to thumb his nose at our justice system. Why is the Minister of Justice making victims of children while accused criminals make a mockery out of our justice system?

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, of course, the issues of delay in particular cases can be examined in light of all the parties and the independent parties that are there when there are proceedings in the court. There is the role of the police, the role of defence counsel, the role of the accused, the role of the court, the role of Prosecutions.

I am very pleased that in Manitoba for the first time that I know of in this country, there is unfolding under the leadership of the Chief Judge, involving my department, involving the police and involving the defence bar, to make sure that cases in the Family Violence Court are dealt with on a timely basis. My understanding is that this is scheduled to unfold later this fall or early this winter. I am also pleased to announce that within the Prosecutions area, we will be announcing officially from October 1, a new child exploitation prosecutor.

Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Justice risks losing the confidence of Manitobans and risks losing this case because of undue delays. I ask the minister today: Will he instruct and dedicate the resources from his department to see that this case moves forward immediately to protect children?

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the reasons for delay vary from case to case. It may be and, I believe in this case there was an absconding for some period of time by the accused, but there are different factors that go into play.

What is important is that as of October 1 in this province we are trying, I think, for the first time ever in this country, a new project and that is to take the child pornography cases that were dealt with by all different Crown attorneys and have them dealt with in a specialized way by designated Crown attorneys, with a new position to oversee that. That is to complement the integrated Child Exploitation Unit with the Winnipeg Police and CyberTip.ca which shows that Manitoba is taking a leadership in specializing, targeting the challenges of child pornography.

Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Speaker, this case has dragged on for half a decade. Manitobans are living with a paper Justice Minister who sends out news releases instead of taking action. His own prosecutors say he is soft, victims cannot get justice. Only the accused and criminals are happy with how this minister is doing his job. Why does the minister continue to allow cases to drag on through the courts through years? Does he lack the interest? Does he lack the will? Will he not dedicate the resources to protect children and Manitobans, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, excessive delay in dealing with cases particularly those where there are child victims or indeed where children as a class are victimized, is not acceptable. That is why I find it interesting coming from members opposite where child victim cases were taking, I believe Stats Canada and Dr. Jane Ursel found 18 months to two years.

* (13:50)

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again I would like to ask the co-operation of all honourable members. It is very, very difficult to hear. If members wish to have a conversation, we have the loges. Feel free to use them. To try and have conversations back and forth, it creates disruption and is very difficult to hear the questions and the answers.

I would like to ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please.

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, under the watch of the former administration, I remind them that indeed if the Prosecutions unit for its role can indeed make a difference, I remind them that the delays were taking 18 months to two years for child victim cases.

Mr. Speaker, there are now dates available for child abuse cases in Manitoba, I am pleased to announce, within four months.

Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker, today in Estimates the Minister of Education finally admitted that Mr. Lloyd Schreyer, secretary to the Compensation Committee of Treasury Board, represented the Government in a strike dispute in Sunrise School Division in April of this year.

My question for the Minister of Education: Who directed Mr. Schreyer to interfere in the Sunrise School Division labour dispute? Was it the Minister of Education or was it the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger)?

Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Education and Youth): Mr. Speaker, it has always been the Government's role to act in the public interest in a labour dispute especially when there is a possibility of strike action. In this particular case with Sunrise, children would be affected by a strike. We have been very supportive of the public education system and will continue to do so.

Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger). Why was a Treasury Board official involved in a labour dispute in the Sunrise School Division?

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I believe there was a mediator appointed to deal with the challenges at the school division. There is a mediator appointed to deal with the Crown attorneys. I believe it was actually the same mediator between the school division in question and the Crown attorneys at the same time.

Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, on April 19, the Minister of Education announced that he set money aside to help end a strike dispute in Sunrise School Division. Yet today he admitted that he did not receive Treasury Board approval for the expenditure until June 18.

Mr. Speaker, how could the Minister of Education commit to providing almost half a million dollars of taxpayers' money to Sunrise School Division without Treasury Board approval?

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker–[interjection]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, as I said, there was a mediator appointed, a similar mediator to the Crown attorneys. In fact, there was arbitration in place. There are many collective bargaining agreements throughout the public service that we are responsible for. The issues are contained within a Budget to deal with these matters.

The situation that we inherited with absolutely not one dollar from the MMA agreement, the CUPE support staff agreement and the other settlements in 1999, when we came into office, the Deloitte Touche audit said there was over $70 million of unfunded settlements made by members opposite, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that the school division did not either formally or informally request any financial assistance in settling this dispute. Can the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) tell this House on what basis he had one of his staff, Mr. Lloyd Schreyer, involve himself in the labour dispute between Sunrise School Division and CUPE when the division did not formally or informally request any financial assistance?

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Members opposite know that individuals that are dealing with the responsibility of the public and the public good and public services and collective bargaining, the Government does have responsibility.

* (13:55)

A year ago we were dealing with a huge dispute dealing with a settlement that was arrived at to give more pay out of a settlement to support staff in rural Manitoba. That was a settlement reached between the urban hospitals and the rural hospitals. There was a dispute then because the rural hospitals accepted the settlement and the city hospitals did not. We have to manage these things.

Mr. Derkach: On the eve of an election, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) interfered in the settlement of a labour dispute between CUPE and the Sunrise School Division by directing his official, Mr. Lloyd Schreyer, to involve himself directly in the dispute.

Can the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) tell this House and all Manitobans why a financial decision of almost half a million dollars was made without any criteria, any Treasury Board analysis or any Treasury Board approval?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for Russell just asked a supplementary question. I think it is incumbent on all members for the honourable member to receive the answer. When everyone is shouting back and forth, I am sure the honourable member would not be able to even hear the answer.

Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): As a matter of fact, I did not hear the question because of all the noise, so perhaps the member opposite could repeat it for me.

Mr. Derkach: I will repeat the question, because I think this is a very important one, Mr. Speaker. I said: On the eve of an election, the Minister of Finance interfered in the settlement of a labour dispute between CUPE and Sunrise School Division by directing his official, Mr. Lloyd Schreyer, to involve himself directly in the dispute.

Can the Minister of Finance tell the House and all Manitobans why a financial decision of almost a half a million dollars was made without any criteria, any Treasury Board analysis and without any Treasury Board approval?

Mr. Sale: I think that members opposite would perhaps recall, certainly the member who asked the question has sat in Cabinet and in Treasury Board, I believe, at least once or twice, that there are many, many bargaining issues in the public sector that involve difficult questions.

The Government has a responsibility to all taxpayers and to all of those in the public sector that provide services, whether they are nurses, whether they are doctors, whether they are teachers, whether they are lab techs, whether they are Hydro employees. It does not matter who it is, we have an interest because we have to protect the interests of all Manitobans, of students, of teachers, of children, of all those who provide services, of union members and so forth.

So it is not at all unusual for us to be concerned about and to have an ear on disputes that are causing distress in the province and to support those who are trying to understand how those disputes might be resolved.

* (14:00)

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want the attention of all honourable members. I have just been put into a situation where because of the decorum in the House, the honourable member could not hear the question. When he repeated it, that was his second supplementary question.

An Honourable Member: No.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, yes, because I recognized the honourable member for a question and the honourable First Minister (Mr. Doer) answered it. That is why I keep asking for assistance of all honourable members so this thing does not occur. That way we can hear the questions. We can hear the answers and we can deal with them in the proper fashion.

The first question was raised by the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach), was answered by the First Minister. The honourable Member for Russell got up on his supplementary question. Because of the noise in the Chamber, the honourable member did not hear the question and so he asked to be repeated. Then he got up again. On the second supplementary question, he repeated the same question. I am going to ask the full co-operation from now on from all honourable members why it is important that we have decorum in the House.

I am going to allow the honourable member to have his second supplementary question, but in the future I ask all honourable members to co-operate in Question Period because we need to hear the questions and the answers. I think this is a very good example of why we need to be able to hear questions and answers.

The honourable member almost lost his second supplementary because of what is happening in the House. In the future, I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please.

The honourable Member for Russell, with his second supplementary question.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that ruling. It is a well-known fact and it has been quoted in the paper that the school division did not formally or informally request financial assistance from the Government in the labour dispute between CUPE and Sunrise School Division.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) if he can tell the House and all Manitobans whether, in fact, it was at the direction of the Premier that this minister allowed Mr. Lloyd Schreyer to become involved in the dispute between Sunrise School Division and CUPE.

Mr. Sale: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question too is for the Premier in regard to the Sunrise School Division issue. I think what we need to make very clear is the fact that the Government goes through a process in which a budget is brought forward and then it is brought to Cabinet. It is passed through Cabinet. When a government or a minister wants to be able to commit an additional half million dollars of public tax dollars, there is the expectation that it goes through Treasury Board. Because there is a labour crisis, because there is an election possibly looming, the Government made a commitment to spend a half million more taxpayer dollars. It did not go through Treasury Board until after the election.

My question to the Premier is: Is it the policy of this Government that ministers can make and commit a half million dollars plus without Treasury Board approval?

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the minister is within budget this fiscal year and last year the only variation from the Budget was a tax reduction.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the Premier can be very clear. Does he feel that the Minister of Education (Mr. Lemieux) followed due process by going out and making this agreement even though the financial assistance was not even requested? Was the Minister of Education in proper place by, without having Treasury Board approval, authorizing public tax dollars to the tune of over $420,000 without consulting with the Treasury Board?

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, there was a mediator appointed. In fact, I think it was the same mediator, I will check the record, that was appointed to deal with the Crown attorneys issue, which eventually could have gone to arbitration.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the Premier has any sense or any idea on how many other ministers, prior to the election, might have gone out there and made thousands of dollars or millions of dollars of other commitments. You have to respect the process. You cannot allow ministers to go out there and make promises.

There is the possibility that they could have lost the last election, then what would have happened? We would have ultimately had better government. No doubt, yes, that is a given, but having said that, a minister cannot go out and make policy and make financial commitments to the degree in which this Minister of Education has.

My question to the Premier is: Will he not acknowledge that the Minister of Education slipped on this and did not follow good process to ensure that the public tax dollars are properly being spent and committed?

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the school divisions, tomorrow, could settle at something in a delegated authority under arbitration. Eighty percent of the costs in education are covered by arbitration. Then we will have to deal ultimately with the costs of that. About 20 percent are in the area of support staff. Many of the support staff agreements have been settled. The members opposite will be the first ones–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again I would like to ask the co-operation of all honourable members. When you are shouting back and forth it is very difficult to hear the question and if there is a breach of the rules or unparliamentary language, I have to make a ruling. I cannot make a ruling if I cannot hear that occurrence taking place. I ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to conclude his answer.

Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am assuming the member opposite is not asking this Legislature to, for example, eliminate the arbitration process that determines 80 percent of the costs in school divisions.

I think the real issue here is: Does the existing school division, where there is a dispute on transportation costs, want to have a mediator? Certainly if they were to ask the Government to help them get a settlement on behalf of the kids and the parents, I think I would encourage that to be looked at to get a solution to this dispute because the kids and the parents are the most important element of this, whether it was in the Sunrise School Division or in the existing school division that has a strike.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Can the Minister of Health update the House on the redevelopment of the Selkirk Mental Health Centre?

Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as members opposite might know, there are three major long-standing projects with respect to redevelopment of facilities in Manitoba.

First, is the largest in history, the redevelopment of the Health Sciences Centre, the CSRP. Second was the long-promised, but never done until we came into government, Brandon redevelopment. The third is the Selkirk redevelopment, which will see the redevelopment of the psychogeriatric and the component for brain damage. The planning is well on its way and I hope to be in a position in the next several months to announce that formally.

Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Can the Premier indicate to the House whether Lloyd Schreyer was in direct contact with the media during the Sunrise School Division mediation process?

Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.

* (14:10)

Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is: Could he indicate to the House, or maybe the Minister of Education could answer the question, are there any other school divisions within the province of Manitoba that have requested the services of Mr. Schreyer to help negotiate or settle their agreements with amalgamated school divisions that might be experiencing harmonization issues?

Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Education and Youth): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the question and I thank the member for the question as well. I just want to comment with regard to Prairie Rose School Division.

Prairie Rose School Division had a conciliation officer put in place. There has been a strike since the beginning of the week. They are looking at possible mediation, and I would encourage if they are at loggerheads to look at mediation. I would be even in favor of asking the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ashton) to work with them and to appoint someone that would be able to help to resolve this dispute.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. Has any other school division, or is any other school division presently working with Mr. Schreyer, or asked for the services of Mr. Schreyer, to deal with the issues in negotiations around harmonization of contracts? Has any other school division asked or is any other school division in the process of working with Mr. Schreyer?

Mr. Lemieux: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the question. There are a couple of divisions that were looking at labour disputes. Louis Riel School Division is one where you have an example with the 730,000-odd dollars that we gave, that $50 per head per student, to assist each division with amalgamation challenges. The Louis Riel School Division was able to solve their labour differences and were able to do this without having a strike.

Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Understanding that Sunrise School Division, through their board, did not ask for any financial assistance, I would like to ask the Minister of Education: Who asked for financial assistance in the settlement of the labour dispute between Sunrise School Division and CUPE?

Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Education and Youth): Mr. Speaker, in Estimates we talked and the member opposite raised a letter sent by the school division chair as well as the superintendent, Mr. Bell, stating that we would like to enter into discussions relating to the disparity in wages. The disparity was 15 percent to 60 percent, the hugest gap anywhere in the province. We have a letter right from the chair as well as the superintendent wanting to discuss this disparity and the effects it would have on their division.

Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, last week on September 11, the world marked the 30th anniversary of the death of Chilean President Salvador Allende. On that date in 1973, President Allende died during the military coup. For the people of Chile, September 11 is a very dark day in history, not only because of President Allende's death, but also because of the severe blow dealt to Chilean democracy.

In remembering the events of 30 years ago, we pay tribute to a man who earned his place in history as the first democratically elected Marxist leader of any nation. September 11 is a day to reflect on his efforts to reform the Chilean economy and make a better life for its citizens. It is also a day to remember the conflict and suffering the Chilean people experienced at the hands of the new regime. For 16 years, thousands of Chileans faced persecution, torture and violence from the Pinochet military dictatorship.

Thirty years later, Chileans are still grappling with the issues arising out of the coup that saw family members killed and the total loss of their future in their home country. For those who came to Canada, there were the trials of adjusting to a new life in a new country, a new language, new communities and new often lesser occupations. They bravely recognize that the past cannot be changed and that the past cannot be recovered. They rose to meet the challenges of their new home. Their significant contributions to the cultural and economic sectors and the democratic process have greatly benefited the province of Manitoba and its people.

I offer my best wishes and my thanks to the members of Manitoba's Chilean community. On behalf of the people and the Government of Manitoba, I extend acknowledgements to the Chilean community as they observe this solemn occasion.

Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the attention of this House about the first ever Turtle Island Festival that was held in Boissevain in early August. This new festival was a hit. It attracted visitors from across the United States and Canada. Given the success of the event, it is sure to be around for many years to come.

The Turtle Island Festival included a number of exciting events for people of all ages, including re-enactments of Manitoba's history and musical talent featuring a tribute concert to Patsy Cline and the Fantasy Fiddlers, a teenaged fiddling group. Saturday's events included the Boissevain Lions parade, a car rally, GPS challenges and a lively social. The fitness competition and craft displays were also highlights of the weekend festival.

In addition, the Turtle Island Festival played host to the Relay for Life, a fundraiser with proceeds going toward the Canadian Cancer Society's research projects. It was my privilege to attend the opening ceremonies and thank the 21 teams who participated in the relay for their contributions of time and financial support and for raising awareness of cancer in the community. Countless people are affected by cancer in various ways, so it was encouraging to have Manitobans of all ages come together for this important charitable event.

The Turtle Island Festival was not only a weekend of local folks together in celebration of their history but it was also an opportunity to give visitors a taste of Manitoba hospitality. With such a large turnout, the festival was clearly a hit. Having attended the first Turtle Island Festival, I look forward to attending this annual celebration on many more occasions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the many organizers, volunteers and participants for their contribution to the Turtle Island Festival. Not only was this weekend a time of fun and celebration but compassionate folks raised thousands of dollars for the Cancer Society as well. It is weekend celebrations like the Turtle Island Festival that rejuvenate community spirit and, most importantly, demonstrate the open and generous hearts of Manitobans.

Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure today that I bring attention to the recent announcement made by the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Caldwell) at the Westminster Children's Care Centre in Wolseley. Just last week the minister announced the creation of 788 new child care spaces across Manitoba and I am pleased to note that the Westminster Children's Care Centre is one of the 38 centres that will benefit from this important announcement.

As one recipient of this funding, the Westminster Children's Care Centre will receive $3,900 in additional funding for four additional school-age and two additional preschool spaces, bringing the centre's total number to 56 spaces.

I would especially like to thank the Westminster Children's Care Centre executive director Greg Blanco and his staff for providing a place to host the announcement and for offering such an essential service for the Wolseley community. At this time I would also like to extend my deep thanks to all child care providers in the Wolseley constituency.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of a child's early years to their long-term development, and early childhood educators play a pivotal role in this crucial process. Their time and patience on a daily, weekly and monthly basis nurtures our children, supports our parents and strengthens communities in Wolseley and across Manitoba.

The exciting developments of last week are of course only a part of this Government's overall commitment to families and child care. In 2002, the minister announced a five-year plan for day care and the creation of 5000 new spaces. Further, thanks to the minister and staff of Family Services, Manitoba has successfully negotiated a pivotal partnership with the federal government that will see a total of 33 million new dollars invested in child care over the next five years.

Mr. Speaker, it was an honour to welcome the Minister of Family Services and his announcement of increased support to Wolseley. I am certain my colleagues in this House will join me in encouraging our Government to continue its many efforts to make positive differences in the lives of children and their families across Manitoba.

Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): I am pleased to rise today to recognize Dr. Allan Ronald, a favourite son of Portage la Prairie, who recently received a prestigious award from the Canadian Medical Association. In August, Dr. Allan Ronald was named recipient of the Frederic Newton Gisborne Starr Award, one of Canada's highest medical honours, for his contribution to the understanding and eradication of HIV-AIDS.

Through his career, Doctor Ronald has served the medical community in many ways, including his extensive research and teaching in microbiology at the University of Manitoba. Doctor Ronald has also made a significant contribution to the health care profession through his mentoring of medical students. Key medical professionals in Toronto, responding to the SARS outbreak, studied under Doctor Ronald, as did Dr. Frank Plummer, head of Health Canada's national microbiology laboratory located here in Winnipeg.

* (14:20)

Upon his retirement as Associate Dean of Research from the University of Manitoba in 1999, Doctor Ronald received the distinguished title of Professor Emeritus. However his career did not end there. In the year 2000, Doctor Ronald was named Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, and in 2002 he joined the Academic Alliance for Aids Care and Prevention in Africa, an organization of Ugandan and North American HIV experts. As a partner in this initiative, Doctor Ronald was given the task of developing, training, caring, researching and prevention programs for Uganda. These are but a few examples of the outstanding contribution to the medical advancement Dr. Allan Ronald has made in the Canadian and international medical community.

Doctor Ronald has devoted decades to the study of internal medicine and infectious diseases enhancing the world's understanding and advancing the treatment of many medical conditions.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to recognize the contributions of Dr. Allan Ronald and to articulate our deepest appreciation for his most outstanding efforts. On behalf of this Assembly and on behalf of all residents of Portage la Prairie, it is my privilege to extend our sincere congratulations to Dr. Allan Ronald for the receipt of the Frederic Newton Gisborne Starr Award. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour and pride that I stand before the House today to tell the members about two of my constituents who recently received the Order of Manitoba. The Order of Manitoba is the province's highest honour. It was established to recognize Manitobans who demonstrated excellence and achievement, have benefited the social, cultural and economic well-being of the province and residents.

Earlier this year, on July 15, Mr. Charles E. Curtis and Dr. Wesley Lorimer both received the awards for their long-standing commitment to Manitoba. I would like to share with the House a little bit about both of my constituents and their distinguishable achievements.

Mr. Charles Curtis got his chartered accountant's degree in 1955. Later in 1967 he joined the Finance Department of the Manitoba government, eventually becoming deputy minister in 1976, a position he held for 20 years until his retirement in 1996. As a civil servant he served numerous provincial premiers, finance ministers and by 1989 he had been involved in preparing 23 provincial budgets, but his work extended to outside work hours. He served on many boards such as the Manitoba Hydro Electric, Centra Gas, Crocus Investment Fund, legal data resource corporation, the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange, to name a few.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Charles Curtis's work has been recognized before. In 1989 he received the Vanier Medal from the Lieutenant-Governor for outstanding service in public administration.

My other constituent who received the Order of Manitoba is Dr. Wesley Lorimer. Doctor Lorimer is a tireless advocate for improvement in education. He established the Manitoba Association of School Superintendents in 1956 and served as its first president. He was appointed as Deputy Minister of Education in 1967 and served until 1978. He provided leadership to Winnipeg's largest public school system when increased urbanization, industrialization and advances in technology challenged its competency to provide students with an appropriate instructional program.

As well he provided leadership in the creation of special programs for students with special needs. In 1965, Manitoba's–

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Some Honourable Members: Leave.

Ms. Irvin-Ross: In 1965, Manitoba's first nursery classroom was established under his leadership. Both Mr. Charles Curtis and Doctor Lorimer have been members of the Rotary Club of Winnipeg.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to have these two men in my constituency. Their hardworking commitment will always be appreciated and remembered. Thank you.

*(14:20)

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations will meet on Wednesday, September 24, at 6:30 p.m. to consider the March 31, 2002, annual report of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board.

Mr. Speaker, would you please canvass the House to see if there is agreement to change the Estimates sequence so that, in the Chamber section, the Estimates of the Seniors Directorate will be considered prior to the Estimates for Advanced Education and Youth; in 254, the Estimates for Healthy Child Manitoba are to follow the Estimates of the Department of Family Services and Housing; and in 254 the Estimates of Civil Service Commission, Employee Pensions and Other Costs, Enabling Appropriations, the Supplementary Appropriations and Other Appropriations are to follow Capital Investments. Finally, the Estimates for the Department of Conservation are to follow the Estimates of Intergovernmental Affairs in 255.

Mr. Speaker: It has been advised that the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations will meet on Wednesday, September 24, 2003, at 6:30 p.m. to consider the March 31, 2002, Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board.

Also, may I ask is there agreement to change the Estimates sequence so that in the Chamber section, the Estimates of the Seniors Directorate will be considered prior to the Estimates for Advanced Education and Youth; in Room 254 the Estimates for Healthy Child Manitoba are to follow the Estimates of the Department of Family Services and Housing; also in Room 254, the Estimates of the Civil Service Commission, Employee Pensions and Other Costs, Enabling Appropriations, the Supplementary Appropriations and Other Appropriations are to follow Capital Investments. Finally, the Estimates for the Department of Conservation are to follow the Estimates of Intergovernmental Affairs in Room 255. Is there agreement? [Agreed]

Mr. Speaker: Now we will resume debate in the Committee of Supply.

* (14:50)

Mr. Chairperson (Harry Schellenberg): Order, please. 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 for the Department of Education and Youth. As had been previously agreed, questioning for this department will follow in a global manner.

The floor is now open for questions.

Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): I just have a couple of quick questions for the minister. First of all, who asked the Government for financial assistance to help end the dispute in Sunrise School Division?

Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Education and Youth): We received comments from the Manitoba Association of School Trustees as well as CUPE and others about discrepancies in wages and also about harmonization throughout the province.

Mrs. Stefanson: So is the minister saying that both MAST and CUPE, one and/or the other, or who specifically asked for the money to help end the dispute in the Sunrise School Division?

Mr. Lemieux: Thank you for the question. We have a letter, March 24, asking that we would like to enter into a discussion relating to the disparity in wages between two former parts of the division, that being the mechanics and bus drivers, I believe, as well as the teacher's aides and administrative secretaries, I believe.

When you take a look at the difference of between 15 to 60 percent, that is a huge gap compared to anywhere else. You do not have that gap in very many other divisions in the province of Manitoba.

The department has worked hard to ensure that all of those kinds of numbers are looked at.

Mrs. Stefanson: I will ask again because I know the minister referred to a letter of March 24 and that being the letter he says had the request for financial assistance of the Government. I see nowhere in here where it has specific numbers or anything in terms of financial assistance. As a matter of fact, this letter says they have a request for a meeting with the minister. It is a second request for a meeting with the minister and yet the minister had not met.

We know from Estimates, I believe yesterday or a couple of days ago, that the minister did not in fact meet with the Sunrise School Division until July and never met over this issue at all. So, my question again for the minister is: Who requested financial assistance to help end the dispute in the Sunrise School Division?

Mr. Lemieux: Well, when you take a look at the letter, Mr. Chairperson, the request is really asking will we enter into discussions relating to the disparity in wages? That, to me, is a clear, clear picture.

We get a lot of letters often from different parties to government asking us to participate in addressing their challenges. We do not certainly act on all of them. Some are more pressing than others. In this particular case with that kind of a gap of 15 to 60 percent it is a huge gap and it shows that the division really would have been hard pressed, and hard pressed to also, when they are into collective bargaining, it would be really difficult for them to possibly address this.

Of course, it ended up going to mediation. Sunrise School Division representatives identified the wage disparity issue and the amount required. Mediation commenced, and then, of course, the parties concluded their tentative agreement.

Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): I would like to ask the minister one more time: Is he prepared to confirm, as he has done consistently, that CUPE asked for the $428,000 at that meeting that he had with them?

Mr. Lemieux: No, CUPE did not.

Mrs. Stefanson: Okay, well, if the school division did not ask specifically for a funding request to help settle this dispute, if the school division did not ask for it, MAST, who then asked for it? Who asked for the financial assistance?

Mr. Lemieux: I will repeat myself again. As I stated this morning in Estimates, there were two representatives of the Sunrise School Division; there was the superintendent of the school division and also there was an official from MAST who asked the person who was responsible for Labour Relations about the amount and they are the ones who stated the amount. The employers stated the amount to the representative of the Government.

Mrs. Stefanson: So am I to understand that the Government was in direct negotiations with this negotiating group then?

Mr. Lemieux: No.

Mr. Schuler: Did the negotiator for CUPE ask the Government for funds to help settle the dispute?

Mr. Lemieux: No.

Mr. Schuler: Did CUPE, negotiating for the employees of Sunrise, ask the Government or an agent of the Government for money to help settle the dispute at Sunrise?

Mr. Lemieux: No.

Mr. Schuler: Well, then, the minister is very clear on who did not ask. Then the question is very straightforward: Who did ask the Government to help settle the dispute in Sunrise School Division by contributing extra money to the school division?

Mr. Lemieux: I will repeat myself again. I stated that the superintendent, Mr. Wallis from MAST, Mr. Bell and two people that were on the negotiating committee, and that was a negotiating committee itself, arrived at the dollar figure and felt that that would be the amount necessary.

Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): I think we are getting a little closer to the answer. The minister has just indicated that Mr. Bell was one of the persons that requested the money and he said there were two others. Could he indicate who those people were?

Mr. Lemieux: No. They were representatives of the employer. It was the employer's representative. Also, Mr. Wallis, I believe, was representing MAST–he is a representative of MAST. I just want to reiterate to members that here you have a difference where you have Sunrise School Division with a huge disparity and you have the Louis Riel School Division that was able to settle their disagreements in–I would not say a short period of time–an amicable period of time without, at least from what I have been advised, any request of assistance from government. The amount that we gave them at $50 per student amounted to about three-quarters of a million dollars. So I am presuming that amount, because their gap was not as great within the Louis Riel School Division, that they were able to settle that.

I have just been told that the superintendent is Ken Bell, not Ron Bell.

Nevertheless, I just wanted to expand on the fact that you have a division like Prairie Rose School Division which is currently in a labour dispute. The strike is on; they have not asked for mediation. They are into their fourth day, I believe, of a strike. We were strongly encouraging them, as I mentioned in the House today during Question Period, and I would certainly recommend to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ashton) that he provide someone to be a mediator to get involved with the parties and, hopefully, they will be able to settle their disagreements and be able to arrive at an amicable agreement and a collective agreement. At least I hope anyway, that you have a settlement take place between these parties. It is in the best interests of the children, as well as the parents and so on in that division. We certainly want that to take place.

As I mentioned, the complexity in Manitoba is that you have a division like Sunrise, a huge gap in salaries, then you have Louis Riel that settles on their own, and now you have Prairie Rose that is in a strike situation. They have not asked for assistance, nor had they followed all the steps yet necessary. As I stated before, the Minister of Labour would be or could be in a position to have a mediator appointed to deal with the two parties. We would hope that they would take advantage of that if they are unable to agree or if the roadblocks appear to be too great for them in order to be able to do that. Once again, just to repeat what I stated this morning is that that is something that I would hope that the officials at the Prairie Rose School Division level would take advantage of.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I think we got a little closer with that last answer. The minister indicated, then, that Mr. Ken Bell and Mr. Wallis were two of the people that requested financial resources from the department for Sunrise School Division. I think he indicated there was a third person. Who was the third person?

* (15:00)

Mr. Lemieux: I am not aware. I have not been advised. I am aware that Mr. Bell, the superintendent, and Mr. Wallis, from MAST were in conversation with the Government's representative. They are the ones who, from an employer's position, stated that they were able to inform the Government, tell the Government what the wage gap was. The Government did not participate in any negotiations. The Government participated by having a representative representing the Government. Mr. Bell and Mr. Wallis from MAST are the ones who raised the dollar amount, thereby letting government know what the gap was and what the challenge was for that division.

Now, when you take a look at the whole issue of amalgamation, we certainly and within the department, I have checked with the department, when they were taking a look at amalgamation and taking a look at benefits of amalgamation, taking a look at the challenges that amalgamation had, the department looked at wages. They looked at geography. They looked at declining enrolment, depopulation. There were many, many areas that they looked at that would have contributed to amalgamation, as I mentioned repeatedly about the advantages of amalgamation.

We feel and I think the public of Manitoba now feel that it has worked out in a very, very positive way. We have seen from many divisions who are sharing resources and sharing expertise like River East Transcona, where I understand that Transcona was not as far down the line with regard to technology as River East was. Now those kind of advantages have been able to flow between borders. You have a situation where the Province of Manitoba has always stated all along that we are going to be very supportive of amalgamated divisions, and we have done so, not only that, to be supportive of all divisions.

We commented this morning about the Norrie report. I believe we talked about quickly the Norrie report, what the Norrie report looked at and the massive changes that the Norrie report was going to bring in with regard to boundaries. Compared to what we have done, what this Government has done with regard to amalgamation, we are certainly far different than what the Norrie report would have been. If that had been implemented by the previous government, it would have created huge change.

There were specific areas for savings and efficiencies that were pointed out that would have created a huge hardship. Our Government believes that you have to have a balance when you are having amalgamation. There has to be a balance on how much and how many divisions you amalgamate together. I mentioned to members opposite that down the road, whether it be in the next 5 to 10 years, there in all likelihood will be amalgamations, but they will be on a voluntary basis because of the benefits that will accrue as a result of amalgamation, whether it is bulk purchasing, whether it is all the synergies that are involved in the technology area and sharing of services and so on.

Also, we have pointed out this morning that when you close three division offices, you get to only one division office. You have three superintendents down to one superintendent. All those kinds of advantages play into amalgamation. We see amalgamation not something happening overnight where we are going to able to see all the efficiencies that are going to result, but over a long period of time. You are going to see those efficiencies take place. We are convinced, as well as many of the school divisions that I have talked to, that those efficiencies are going to happen.

Just to conclude, my point is that the Opposition took a look at amalgamation, they were going to do it. For whatever reason, they left the Norrie report sitting on the shelf and did not implement it. That was their choice. We as a government took a look at amalgamation as being very positive and we proceeded with it. We are starting to see some of the benefits.

Mrs. Mitchelson: My question for the minister is: Did the Government or this minister direct Lloyd Schreyer to speak to the school division, to MAST and to the union to ask how much money they needed, or was he there meeting with the school division and MAST and the union at their request? Did they request Mr. Schreyer's involvement or did the Government direct Mr. Schreyer's involvement?

Mr. Lemieux: We have been in conversations with MAST for a long period of time with regard to amalgamation. I believe the previous minister was. I have been. I mean, MAST has certainly raised harmonization as one issue with regard to all the challenges that they have. The long and the short of it is that we as a government have said that we are going to be very supportive of amalgamated divisions, not certainly to the detriment of any department or budget or government balancing the budget, but we as a government feel very strongly that when these changes were made and amalgamation took place, we were not going to allow the divisions to try to address all these challenges on their own.

What we have done is that we have essentially had a good working relationship, I believe, with MAST, the parent organization, all the organizations and stakeholders in the school system. The reason for that is because in order to make this work, there has to be a partnership. This partnership, as far as we are concerned, means sitting down and listening and talking to people and having open discussion and dialogue as to what their challenges are. We are not able to address all of them, obviously, overnight. Some of the discussions are going to have to take longer than just one or two meetings certainly, but we know that pension and many other issues are important to the divisions as well as to MAST and to the employees.

With regard to the amalgamations and the process that took place when we proceeded with amalgamation, we invited and received comments from the divisions themselves. They met with the previous minister, and had many discussions with regard to where they thought their challenges were. I am certainly not privy to those discussions. I was not the minister then, but there were discussions around harmonization, around employee representatives and many, many other areas about funding and possible challenges there.

I know that many of our identified goals, that we were looking at amalgamation and what we were hoping to accomplish as a result of the amalgamation, were dealing with a lot of different themes.

Some of them were dealing with modernization of many of the divisions, also financial viability and low enrolment and a balanced, moderate approach to amalgamation, which I mentioned before. So I just want to remind members that those identified goals for amalgamation, that we set out before getting into amalgamation, are starting to result in very, very positive feedback to us as a government. Now that is not to say we are perfect. We are not. We are certainly not going to rest on our laurels with regard to where we have come so far.

We did not believe that amalgamation and all the positive results would be coming overnight–would not happen overnight. We have repeatedly said that. We believe amalgamation is more of a long-term process, and there is no end date to amalgamation and what is going to happen as a result.

So I know that I can just comment quickly about the last time there was an amalgamation. I believe it was 1958 or 1960, late fifties or early sixties. I am referring to before Norwood took place. It would have been in the sixties. These do not take place very often and there is a reason for that. The member from Russell was going to school then and he probably was in Grade 5 or so by then. I was, I think, and so I just want to say that these do not happen very often. Amalgamations are taken and they are done in a very serious way, because we know that there are a number of challenges as a result of amalgamation.

We have identified many of the goals and I certainly do not want to repeat myself too much, but I think it is important to put on the record that when you are looking at amalgamation and what that will do to modernize Manitoba's education system, you can see that if that happened during the Campbell era or the Duff Roblin times, it shows you that it does not happen very often. You have to take a look at it in a very serious and methodical way and a balanced way.

We did so. We looked at all the issues. I know I clarified with staff that they looked at salary discrepancies. I made mention yesterday in the newspaper, incorrectly I might add, that I was not sure whether or not they looked at those issues; but they did. They looked at salary; they looked at the different areas. I, personally, when I received that letter inviting us to participate in discussions with Sunrise over their challenges–it certainly hit home when I saw it was between 15% and 60% difference in salaries from one employee to another. This was an issue that was never raised by the previous government, in the difference in salary from one to another, from one division to another. This is something that they certainly never tackled in the 11 years that they were government, and so, as a government, I am very proud of the fact that we are able to try to tackle this whole issue of amalgamation and the importance it is to the education system.

Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Well we have seen the minister slip and slide all over the place this afternoon, and we are not getting answers to the questions that we are asking. But the minister has moved closer to admitting that, in fact, there was no request for money from the school division nor from CUPE. That has been established, because, Mr. Chairperson, now he is saying that Mr. Bell, who is the superintendent of the school, made the request for money. Now in checking with the records, the spokesperson for the school division–who is the chairperson, who is the employer of Mr. Bell–has said that there was no request made by the school division for funding.

An Honourable Member: She is not in touch with her negotiating committee.

Mr. Derkach: Oops. Now the minister is saying that the chair is not in touch with the negotiating committee.

An Honourable Member: Well, what other reason–

* (15:10)

Mr. Derkach: Well, Mr. Chairperson, the chair of the board has stated emphatically there was no formal nor was there an informal request for money. Those are not my words. That is the statement made by the official trustee, the chair of the board. Now, Mr. Ken Bell is an agent of the board, and now the minister is saying that it was Mr. Bell who made the request for money along with Mr. Wallis of the MAST organization. I do not think I am putting words in the minister's mouth. This is what he said.

On that basis, the department then would have had to have done some analysis of how much money would be reasonable to flow in a situation like this. I am going to ask the minister whether he can table any departmental analysis, and who the announcement was done by, to indicate that this was the amount of money that should be flowed–and that there was justification for it.

What criteria were used to establish the amount of money that was flowed? Because this is important, Mr. Chair.

We have a situation now with Prairie Rose School Division. Are there criteria in place that will determine when and how much money a division like that would get to help resolve its salary dispute? I am asking the minister to identify what analysis was done and what criteria were used to establish the amount of money that was going to Sunrise School Division.

Mr. Lemieux: Certainly, the Government's representative or the person representing government who had a meeting with Mr. Wallis from MAST, Mr. Bell and two representatives of the negotiating committee–their employer negotiating team, as I have been advised–are the ones who spoke to the representative of the provincial government, and informed the Government that they were at loggerheads.

They wanted to go to mediation and they wanted to get this settled. Both parties wanted to go to mediation. Because of this salary or wage gap that this employer negotiating team raised with the Government, and informed the Government of how much money–where there was a gap. The Sunrise School Division was prepared to, in their words, accommodate two-thirds of what they were looking at approximately. Approximately one-third they were asking the Province of Manitoba for, because they asked us for assistance.

The chair wrote a letter. I am not sure under what circumstances. I have no reason to doubt the chair or what the chair of the board is saying. But I am telling members opposite that the employer negotiating team were the ones who identified a sum of money in stating what the school division was needing.

With regard to Prairie Rose School Division, Prairie Rose School Division is somewhat different. When my critic for education from Tuxedo said that there is a precedent set, no, there is not a precedent set. The circumstances are far different from Prairie Rose compared to Sunrise. Sunrise School Division has a 15% to 60% wage discrepancy–far different than Prairie Rose. Prairie Rose, I believe, is around anywhere from 8 to 20, I think, so here you have a huge difference in circumstances, a big difference with regard to the gap in salary that you are looking at.

So the circumstances are different, far different than Louis Riel, which I repeated and I continue to repeat, where a division was able to settle their own–they sat down, the employer and the employee, and negotiated and they were able to come up with their own agreement, so that leaves government looking at–here you have amalgamated divisions who have a big degree of difference in salary range within their employees.

I did not say, and no one has ever said, that this would not be a challenge. Everyone knows this. I have met–the Manitoba Association of School Trustees on a number of occasions, formally and informally, in the past year have certainly raised this. The department looked at some of the differences in salaries, I understand, or so I have been advised, when amalgamation or prior to amalgamation happening. So yes, we are aware that these differences take place. Contracts do expire. They will continue to expire on a rolling, ongoing basis and we hope strikes will not happen as is happening in Prairie Rose.

Again I just want to ask the people in Prairie Rose, or make a suggestion if I might, that I am prepared to speak to the Minister of Labour and have the Minister of Labour suggest a mediator or someone to get involved with mediation. Prairie Rose has not done that. I believe there was a conciliation officer assigned to them, and talks broke down. But I believe it is important for the parties to get back to the table and end the strike in Prairie Rose.

As I said, talks have broken off. Mediation is available to those parties, so you have a far–there is a great deal of difference from many of the school divisions around the province of Manitoba. It is something where collective bargaining in the province of Manitoba has been very successful, in a sense that you do have the opportunity for people to sit down together, bargain in good faith and to come up with agreements. So we should rest assured that the Department of Labour, labour relations, who has a mandate to monitor labour issues throughout the province and act in the public's best interest, has many things available to them which can assist employer and employees in trying to rectify their differences.

Once again, in the case of Sunrise School Division, the chair wrote to me expressing concerns in the disparity of wages between the two divisions. The old Agassiz part of the division and the Springfield portion of the Transcona-Springfield part where you had employees–I understand that the employees on the Springfield side had what you would call city wages–City of Winnipeg wages–compared to Agassiz. The employees in Agassiz are more like the employees throughout rural Manitoba, and so that created a huge gap.

As a government wanting to be supportive of children to ensure that a strike would not last a long time with regard to hampering their education in any way, and the same applies to Prairie Rose, we want to ensure that those children are not out of school. We will do everything we can. We have had no formal or informal requests, I understand, at all from Prairie Rose. What I am doing is I am encouraging, I am asking Prairie Rose that if they need some assistance, the Department of Labour (Mr. Ashton) will do it. I am, certainly, prepared to ask the Minister of Labour to do everything he can to bring the parties back together to have discussions over where the roadblocks are and see if they can get through them.

So, Madam Chairperson, I thank the member for the question, and I would, certainly, be pleased to address any other questions that they have.

* (15:20)

Mr. Derkach: It is obvious that the minister has gotten himself into some hot water, and he is ragging the puck in this portion of the Estimates, repeating himself time and time and time again. If he has nothing else to say, I suggest that he try to answer the question and leave it at that. We are going to be calling both the board and Mr. Wallis to confirm that they in fact asked the minister for this assistance, because that is what the minister said. It was Mr. Wallis and Mr. Bell on behalf of the board who asked for the $428,000. I find it incredible that even as late as today the board has indicated they did not make any formal request or informal request for money, and Mr. Bell is an agent of the board.

Secondly, the minister talks about the fact that Prairie Rose has not come forward to ask for any assistance. Well, neither did Sunrise. They made no request for money. They made a request for a meeting. There is quite a difference between asking for money and asking for a meeting. The minister has no criteria established to determine when and at what point a school division should receive assistance. He is saying that, because the wage gap that he created through amalgamation was where it is, that Sunrise should get assistance but those who have a lesser gap should not get assistance. Where is the point at which time a school division is eligible to receive assistance from the Province?

The minister also talks about an agent of government, and I think he admitted before lunch today in Estimates that that agent of government was Mr. Lloyd Schreyer, who is from Treasury Board. Now we have a situation where the Government is using an agent of Treasury Board to negotiate salaries and to negotiate salary disputes between school divisions and between CUPE. Now, this is being done on behalf of the Department of Education or is it being done on behalf of the Department of Finance or where are we at with this? This is the most unusual and bizarre approach to settling salary disputes that I think anybody has ever seen in the history of this province.

Now, there is a point in time when government becomes involved through appropriate channels in salary disputes. Whether it is MCI or whether it is other salary issues that have to be resolved, there is a process, but in this case, there is no process. We had an election, a pending election. The Premier (Mr. Doer) knew when he was calling the election. We have a Treasury Board official, an agent of Treasury Board, being involved in a salary dispute between a school division and CUPE. Now, it is different if it is a member from the Department of Labour who is involved, but in this case we have confirmed that this is an agent of Treasury Board who was involved in the dispute. Now the minister is shaking his head and saying no. I ask the minister to check his own records. It is clear, and we confirmed that this afternoon, that indeed this individual is an employee of Treasury Board. He is not an employee of the Department of Labour. He is an employee of Treasury Board.

You have to look at who is involved in Treasury Board. We have Mr. Eugene Kostyra involved here. We have Mr. Lloyd Schreyer involved here. We have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) involved here directly. And they are directing that, on the eve of the election, we are going to flow, as a government, some $428,000 as a commitment to a school division to settle the strike before the election is called. Now, this is political interference. This is a matter of interfering in a collective bargaining process on the eve of an election in a political way where a government sends its political agent from Treasury Board to settle a dispute. Clearly, this is done to give the Government and its nominated candidates an advantage in the election.

I think anyone in this province would look at this situation and understand very clearly how government tried to manipulate a labour dispute in this province to its advantage by providing money so as to have their own nominated candidate have an advantage. Now, the minister is saying no, but on the 10th of April, this minister said there was no need to involve himself in the process, that negotiations were going on. He had that letter in his hand from the school division on March 24. That letter did not come to him after April 10. He had that letter in his hand on, shortly after March 24. That letter was written on March 24.

So he knew the situation in the school division. On April 10, he stood in front of the media and said there was no need to involve any of his staff or his money in settling this dispute. One week later, one week later this minister's mind was changed. An agent of the Treasury Board got involved in the negotiations, and we had $428,000 flow to this division without the request from the division, because, I have to believe, the chair who is an elected member and an elected head of the board, who said there was no formal or informal request made of the Government. Without any request being made of government, this money was flowed.

Now, Madam Chairperson, I want to ask the minister why it is that we have a situation in Prairie Rose, who are in a strike mode right now, not requesting money yet, but the minister not moving on this issue at this point of time, yet in Sunrise, the minister moved very quickly prior to an election, within a week, to ensure that that strike was out of the way before the election was called.

Mr. Lemieux: Madam Chairperson, I thank the member for the question. In both circumstances, Sunrise, I am referring to, and to Prairie Rose,there are two different circumstances. Sunrise was involved in mediation. They had a process where parties agreed to go to mediation. Right now, I am asking, I have not asked yet, but I am, certainly, looking at asking the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ashton) to look at talking to the parties and appointing a mediator that would work with these parties.

The circumstances are different. You have in Sunrise, where you had such a huge salary gap. Now, I do not know whether or not the board feels that they can accommodate their collective bargaining through the dollars they have. Possibly they do. Louis Riel did. The monies we gave Louis Riel, they were able to conduct their negotiations and they settled it.

I am not sure whether or not Prairie Rose is able to do that, but I can tell you, Madam Chair, that we as a government and I as the minister are committed to working with Prairie Rose or any other school division that feels they have a difficulty, whether it is financial or otherwise. There are no guarantees, but we will sit down and talk to them. I have already, with a number of school divisions, had discussions on many global issues.

But the point I am trying to make is that in the case of Sunrise you have a letter that is sent to the minister wanting to have urgent talks about their discrepancy in wages. They just said, we would like to enter into discussions relating to the disparity in wages between the two former partners.

They lay out exactly what some of those dollar differences are, and they talk about the unions that they are involved with, the salary differential from the like jobs that show the variance of 15 to 60 percent, depending on the workforce. They say: This will place an extraordinary pressure on our budgets over the next number of years.

So Sunrise is in a far different position than Prairie Rose. What I am saying, though, is that Prairie Rose, we are there as a government. We have always stated, continually, that if they want our assistance, if they need the Department of Labour's assistance for a mediator, if they are wanting to discuss the challenges that they see, I am open to that and the Government is open to that, to sit down and talk to them.

Now, there are other amalgamated divisions and other divisions for that matter that have collective agreements expiring, and this is going to create a real challenge for those divisions. We understand that, and, also, we are certainly open to having dialogue with those divisions that have not approached us yet or I have not met with yet to hear directly from them.

So, Madam Chair, I just want to say and I want to reiterate that our Government was there to enable, to assist the Sunrise School Division, that in the chair's words, they had extraordinary pressures on them. They had a huge salary differential. Also, by the way, they did go to mediation and they had mediation services. So the circumstances are far different in Sunrise compared to Prairie Rose.

So, again, what I can do is encourage Prairie Rose to look at mediation if they cannot solve or get past the barriers that they see as a challenge to getting a collective agreement.

Mr. Derkach: Madam Chair, I would like to ask the minister whether there was analysis done by his department to establish whether or not this was the amount of money that was required and how this was going to be accommodated.

* (15:30)

Mr. Lemieux: Well, when it came to my attention, I asked the department to look at the different options that we had within our budget, and, you know, the formalized approval was completed before any expenditure was made.

When we were looking at our options, Madam Chair, we were looking at support to schools in an area where school grants and operating grants lie, approximately $684 million in that area.

I mentioned yesterday, and the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach), who was the Minister of Education, knows that there are overages and underages, I believe that is the proper word, with regard to this particular area. The $112,000 has certainly been able to, as I pointed out before to members, that $112,000 was able to be looked at.

In grants, there is a grants take-up. Sometimes the take-up is more or less. Sometimes you have a bigger take-up than what you expect. Other times you have less take-up. Not only were the dollars looked at, when we looked at our Budget and at our funds. We know the dollars were there. We designated those dollars and the formalized approval was completed before any expenditure was made on those dollars.

Unlike a $70-million unfunded commitment that when we came into government there was a commitment made of $70 million of unfunded commitment that was made by the previous government. When we came into the Manitoba Medical Association, the MMA, I am trying to think of the others that had commitments made to them. Fine, it was up to that government to make those. That was within their purview to make those decisions. They did, but they were unfunded.

In this particular case, I make the argument those dollars, we designated or found the dollars from where the $112,000 could be found. I know the Member for Russell, I believe he mentioned it before, or maybe it was one of his colleagues, that, yes, governments make commitments before the formalized approval process is completed on occasion. We understand that.

Before any cheques were distributed or any expenditure made, a formalized approval was completed. I repeat that to put that on the record to make sure it is absolutely clear that not only did we follow the process to do that but the dollars were there to do it, unlike some other unfunded commitments that were made when we came into government. We found out that those unfunded commitments to the Manitoba Medical Association, surprise, you have a bill. There was nowhere that those dollars were designated.

I am trying to be fair to the Member for Russell, but on this particular occasion we have been forthright in saying where the dollars are, how much the dollars are and the formalized approval process was completed before any expenditures were made.

I know sometimes members opposite, the Opposition, I have not had the pleasure of being in opposition, but in eight years the government may change. We do not think so. The people of Manitoba will decide.

Having said that, any question they wish to ask is fine, but they might get irritated and agitated because they do not like the answer. The fact of the matter is that the answer is the answer, and the answer is honest and forthright, telling the members of Opposition exactly what has transpired. Again, if they wish to ask any questions related to amalgamation or whether or not they want to ask any questions about a new school we are building in Winkler, Manitoba, or a new school we are building in Mitchell, Manitoba, if they want to ask any questions related to any area of education, I will certainly do my best and attempt to answer the question.

Mr. Derkach: The minister talks about commitments that were unfunded that were made in 1999. I can tell this minister that his Premier (Mr. Doer) made almost a half a billion dollars of announcements prior to the election being called. As a matter of fact, it was in the last two weeks prior to the election being called. I understand those things.

Madam Chair, the issue here is that this was a commitment that was made to settle a salary dispute. Whether or not the Treasury Board paper flowed immediately afterward, this was a commitment that was made to settle a dispute. It was made by somebody from Treasury Board.

The minister can say what he likes but, Madam Chair, never in the history of this province have I ever seen an official agent of Treasury Board involving himself directly in a mediation and a negotiation process between a school board and CUPE. This is the first.

The minister says, well, there was a request made. There was no request made. We have established that. There was no request made. The chair of the board has said there was no request made of this. Yes, there is a large salary gap, but no request was made. So the Government moved on its own. There was no request made by anybody.

Madam Chair, the minister talks about being fair and honest in this process. I am not going to reflect on the minister's character in terms of his integrity or his honesty. I believe the minister is a good person who tries to answer in a forthright way. Unfortunately, his hands have been tied by the directives that have been given him by his Premier and by Treasury Board. In this instant, we have a situation where the minister is simply a pawn of the Premier and the political process here.

I want to know whether or not there have been any criteria established in the department or in Treasury Board so as to deal with the wage discrepancies that are out there in other school divisions, instead of having a one-off like we did with the Sunrise School Division simply because there was an election looming.

* (15:40)

Mr. Lemieux: The representative of the Government is a highly respected individual that is the primary staffperson responsible for compensation issues in the province. He deals with issues related to labour contracts related to the public sector. This person is highly respected within the business community and also highly respected in what he does. Mr. Schreyer has worked in many different areas. I stand to be corrected on this but I know that if you have issues with health professionals or technical workers or whatever public sector area, there are labour issues or labour-related issues in the public sector, and Mr. Schreyer is someone who is highly respected by all parties and is open to all parties. People know that he is a person that can be called upon for assistance.

I would comment that I know the member from Russell knows that there is a difference. I believe he knows now that there is a difference between Prairie Rose and Sunrise. I know he is asking me is your government going to be there. Are you going to be there to assist Prairie Rose? I am telling him, yes, we are. We are not going to be there without having discussions and the process taking place. Prairie Rose has not gone to mediation. If Prairie Rose goes to mediation, and if there is another avenue, there is another way to help them solve their dilemma. Sunrise School Division went to mediation. They were able to work hard to arrive at a collective agreement. I just want to make that point.

Mr. Derkach: Madam Chair, I asked the minister, and he has not responded, what criteria have been established to determine how amalgamated school divisions that have wage differentials are going to be addressed in the future. Are there criteria that have been established at what point government will involve itself with dollars?

Mr. Lemieux: I thank the member for the question. I want to reiterate, if nothing else, that there are many areas of government where government funding is provided within the Department of Education of which he was the minister.

I just certainly want to touch a little bit, if I might, and beg your indulgence to touch on issues not only related to amalgamation, which are important, but a couple of issues that were raised I believe it was this morning with regard to the Public Schools Finance Board. Looking at the Public Schools Finance Board, I believe it was the member from Inkster who raised the issue about the Public Schools Finance Board and the Sisler School. I just want to say that this is an area where there are only so many dollars available. There is a fund that is available to the Public Schools Finance Board. They have to determine how those dollars are used.

I know the member from Ste. Rose is here today. There is a school in his area, in Laurier school, that is important to his constituents. I know the Public Schools Finance Board is meeting with those parents or meeting with individuals there. It is something that they are hard-pressed for money and cash and they are trying to do the best they can. There is a school that was designated there for the Francophone school division and now options are certainly being looked at about what you do about that particular school. I just wanted to take a moment to comment on that while he was here.

With regard to Prairie Rose School Division as well as to Sunrise School Division, I believe that what has been made clear is that there is a clear difference between those two divisions and a difference between also Louis Riel. What we are finding is that when people were compiling the stats before amalgamation took place we realized that those numbers varied from division to division but what you do not know for sure is whether or not those school divisions are able to accommodate whatever financial challenges they have and whatever challenges they have with regard to trying to settle the collective agreements. Before people came forward and asked for assistance in wanting to meet on the wage discrepancy and also put dollars and dollar numbers forward through the representative of the Province, their negotiating team for Sunrise, who was to really know what the gap was?

In the case of Louis Riel, many people would not have predicted that Louis Riel was able to settle without any assistance. They were able to do it on their own. Who knows, Prairie Rose might be able to do the same thing. They may be able to settle their own contractual dilemma on their own, but Sunrise could not, and they certainly passed that message on to government and passed it on to the Government's representative and in fact told the Government's representative they are willing to go to mediation.

They did and they were able to settle their differences with the assistance of the Province. They were able to be very clear about that. Otherwise, they were saying that in their opinion this was a huge roadblock for them.

The member mentions finances and mentions where dollars come from and what we are looking at with regard to finances. We have made it quite clear that the first year's allocation of $112,000 occurred after our Budget and the commitments had been found within our existing Budget. He knows that governments on occasion make commitments before the formalized approval process. Sunrise knew this. Informal approval is secured in a variety of ways, but the formalized approval was completed before any expenditure was made. It is quite clear and it is very straightforward what took place.

I know members opposite do not begrudge Sunrise School Division ending their strike, at least I do not believe that is what I am hearing. I think that the member from Russell or others made that clear. This was a huge challenge for them. They say that there was no way that they could get past that challenge and there was no way that they could resolve their differences. It is important to note that.

I thank the member for the question and I will be pleased to try to answer any other question he has.

Mr. Derkach: Madam Chair, I hate to tell the minister he is not being truthful, but the fact of the matter is that we have a situation here where the minister is interpreting a letter that he has received from a school board in a much different way than what the school board itself is interpreting the letter.

Let him talk to the chair of the board in the school board, and you will find that in fact that is not what they wrote him a letter about at all. They wanted to sit down with the minister and discuss the issue, because they understood that the minister was sitting down with CUPE to discuss the issue.

Now, the minister did not sit down with this board until July. He made a decision before sitting down with the board, even though he had sat down with CUPE. So we have a situation here which is quite bizarre in how the minister is dealing with a fairly significant and sensitive matter.

I have asked the minister if he could lay out the criteria that will be used for other school divisions that have amalgamated in terms of their harmonization of salaries. The minister has not laid those criteria down. His Premier today in front of the media said that government and the departments have a contingency fund for this process. So, obviously, there has to be money set aside somewhere in the minister's Estimates that would be identified as a contingency fund for the purpose of settling disputes between school divisions and their CUPE membership, their non-teaching staff, if you like, for labour disputes that occur as a result of harmonization.

I would like to ask the minister if he could identify how much money or where that money is located for settling these kinds of labour disputes throughout the province for the divisions that have been amalgamated, because his Premier today indicated that there is a contingency fund within the department for this purpose.

* (15:50)

Mr. Lemieux: Madam Chairperson, I certainly cannot comment on what the Premier said or refute or dispute what he said or did not say. I understand that just took place. I cannot comment on that one way or another. I am not sure what he said.

I just want to say that, as a government, I can tell you what I am saying is that we said that we would be there to assist amalgamated divisions. That includes Prairie Rose, that includes Park West, that includes many other school divisions that will need our assistance.

We are not saying we are making any guarantees with regard to finances. No, we are not. In the case of Sunrise, they went to mediation. Prairie Rose have not gone to mediation. They are following a process. Right now they are at loggerheads. We are just recommending–I would like to see them. I am prepared to recommend to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ashton) to address that and get the people back at the table and get them talking again. Far different than Sunrise, where they went to mediation and they were able to come up to an agreement with the assistance of the Province. We, certainly, have not denied and never have denied that the Province assisted Sunrise School Division.

We said we would assist any amalgamated division that had any difficulties. In fact, we have provided many dollars for school divisions throughout the province of Manitoba. We have gone through what the dollars are per student in all these divisions at $50 per student and what that adds up to: Border Land School Division, $116,000; Frontier, $168,000; Louis Riel, $742,000.

The reason why I am mentioning this is because that $50 per student, some divisions, it appears that because of enrolment or even decline in enrolment, this may affect their bottom line in the sense that the dollars they are having to address their labour differences may not be sufficient. You might have declining enrolment in certain school divisions.

When we are looking at the dollar figures we have to monitor it very closely. If the students are leaving and enrolment is dropping they are not going to get these dollars. These dollars are based on a per student. When you have almost three quarters of a million dollars, in fact more, with Louis Riel, that helped them a lot to get through their labour differences.

I know that Prairie Rose School Division is receiving $40,000 this year, $40,000 next year, $40,000 the year after, amounting to $120,000. That amount might not be enough. It may not be sufficient to get them over the hurdle, but we have not heard back from them. We have not heard formally or informally back from them or heard from them at all, I should say, to the best of my knowledge. Unlike a letter we received from Sunrise School Division or a couple of letters we received from Sunrise School Division.

Yes, as a province, we are going to be there. We will be there to sit down and talk to amalgamated divisions and try to help them through some difficult times. I know the Premier (Mr. Doer) has said that, that we as a province have made a commitment to amalgamated divisions as well as other divisions and we will continue to work with them to ensure the process continues where somewhere down the line, it is an ongoing process, where you are going to see the benefits, not only in the short term or the medium but in the long term, the benefits of amalgamation.

I thank the member for the question. I know he may have others or his colleagues may have other questions but I would be prepared to try to answer them.

Mr. Derkach: The minister is simply stonewalling. I have asked him to set down the criteria that are established to help school divisions. That is not an unrealistic request. We are simply asking at what point does a school division start to qualify for assistance from the department? That is very straightforward, sensible, and it is the only way to approach a situation where a school division has to know whether or not they are even close to qualifying for provincial assistance to harmonize their salaries or whether they are not.

The Premier talked about a contingency fund within the department to deal with these issues. The Government said they would save something like $10 million through the amalgamation process. We are finding now that the harmonization process in itself, that is just one item, is going to cost approximately the same amount as what the previous minister had identified in savings.

There seems to be not only a wash when it comes to whether we are saving money or spending more money as a result of amalgamation, we have now a minister who has decided because of circumstances leading up to an election to involve himself by giving money to a school division, setting a precedent and an expectation by other school divisions that there is going to be government assistance.

We have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) involving himself by ensuring that one of his officials out of his department, out of Treasury Board, is involved directly in the negotiation process.

Madam Chair, I am asking the minister once again if he would lay down the criteria that are going to be used to establish whether or not amalgamated school divisions, and at what point they will be able to qualify for assistance from the contingency fund that has been set aside for this purpose.

* (16:00)

Mr. Lemieux: Just wanting to touch base a little bit on the $23.8 million that we gave school divisions, that is about a 22.8 percent increase across the board. I want to put this on the record because it is important to note the kind of dollars that the amalgamated divisions are getting. They will have their challenges, but within that it is important to note that the difference–I know I am repeating myself. I apologize to the Member for Russell for having patience. Sunrise went through conciliation, then they went through mediation. Prairie Rose have not done that.

When the member is asking about what kind of steps are involved or what is involved, the collective bargaining process is important that the school divisions have to follow.

Yesterday I used this analogy. Maybe it is not the best one. We say that to build a new school, Major Pratt School in Russell, Manitoba, we have put aside $6 million to build Major Pratt. We put out tenders for that. What is going to happen, I know he knows this, that it is going to come back at the amount you lay out there. I do not know if the member is asking me this, whether or not each amalgamated division should have an allocated amount of money to each division.

I mean, the union or the employees see that. They see that money, and they immediately know that this is what we are going to be jumping at. So that is why I use the analogy of building a new school at Major Pratt in Russell, and you put $5 million or $6 million on the side. Guess what the quotes are going to come back at? So it creates a great deal of difficulty. He recognizes that. I am sure he does.

But, when you take a look, for example, at Border Land School Division, we gave them $10 million approximately, and I am just rounding it off. That is an amalgamated division. We have Frontier at around $27 million. You have Louis Riel School Division at $60 million. You have Mountain View School Division at approximately $15 million. You have Park West School Division at around $9 million. You have Pembina Trails School Division at $47 million, and you have Prairie Rose School Division at $10 million and Prairie Spirit School Division at $13 million and Red River School Division at $10 million, River East School Division at $73 million.

The reason I am mentioning this is that the support that the Province of Manitoba has given is unprecedented, unprecedented, in the amount of money that these school divisions have received from this Government. Over the last four years, our Government has put in more money than the previous government has in the last ten. The reason I mention that is to show and point out that our Government is supportive not only of education in the broadest terms, but we are also supporting capital and we are also supporting the funding of education overall.

An Honourable Member: That was not the question. The question was about criteria.

Mr. Lemieux: Well, it is important that it be put on the record that our Government is very supportive of the school divisions, of amalgamated divisions. It is very difficult to determine from one division to another. I thank the member from Russell for the question, but it is very difficult to determine from one division to the next, when you have Sunrise School Division having their challenges and then Louis Riel settling without even talking to the Government or approaching the Government.

Mrs. Stefanson: My question for the minister, he had mentioned earlier today, this morning in Estimates, that Mr. Schreyer, who is an official with Treasury Board, was involved in this process.

I am wondering if the minister can let me know or let this committee know at what point Mr. Schreyer got involved in the process.

Mr. Lemieux: Just a clarification, Mr. Schreyer deals with compensation issues within the public sector.

Mrs. Stefanson: At what point did Mr. Schreyer get involved in the strike dispute with Sunrise School Division?

Mr. Lemieux: I know it is repetitive, but it is important to note that the Government did receive a letter from Sunrise School Division. In the letter they discussed the importance of their wage gap, their 15% to 60% differential in salaries, that letter by the board chair and, I might mention, Mr. Bell who was part of that negotiating team along with a gentleman from MAST and a couple of other representatives who were the people who informed the representative for the Government of the amount that this 60 percent would cause the Sunrise School Division.

So you have a situation where a strike happened and you have a government official representing government who works on compensation issues. It was determined that both parties wanted to go to and agreed to go to mediation, but there was a shortfall of money. Cash was the problem and my understanding is that two-thirds of the money they were able to cover, two-thirds of the harmonization, but the one-third they were not, in approximate terms.

So I just wanted to let all members know that this is, again, a division that was hard-pressed. They were saying that they were hard-pressed financially with such a large variance in salaries depending on the workforce position that they felt that there was no other way for them to conclude what they were doing without assistance from the Government. We as a government said that we would be working with amalgamated divisions in any way we could.

Mrs. Stefanson: The minister mentioned that Mr. Schreyer deals with compensation issues. Is Mr. Schreyer not an employee of the Treasury Board?

Mr. Lemieux: I understand that Mr. Schreyer works with compensation issues and deals with compensation issues related to the public sector. I mentioned before, he is someone who is a primary staffperson, really responsible for those compensation issues. He is highly respected, I believe, not only within the health profession, for example, or other areas, but he is someone that has the respect of many organizations, including MAST.

Mrs. Stefanson: What government department does Mr. Schreyer work for?

Mr. Lemieux: The Government of Manitoba employs many employees, as the member knows, including all of us, I guess, at the table. This is something that, in mentioning Mr. Schreyer, Mr. Schreyer is someone that is known not only, as I mentioned, as highly respected, but he is an individual that has dealt with difficult issues, I am sure, because he has dealt with health care professionals, he has dealt with other areas in the public sector of Manitoba, and he is well known to MAST and he is well known to many individuals in the public sector. I include schools or education in that area.

Mrs. Stefanson: Because of Mr. Schreyer's involvement with a number of issues that have arisen in the Department of Education, is the minister saying that Mr. Schreyer is an employee of the Department of Education?

Mr. Lemieux: It would be nice to have Mr. Schreyer as an employee of the Department of Education because of all his skills and his abilities to work with the public sector. Many of the school divisions throughout Manitoba, I am sure, would enjoy working with such a gentleman, because he is not only very knowledgeable about the public sector, but also has a very good reputation within many, many different sectors and has a very good idea about what happens with regard to salaries and comparables, and so on.

He is very, very familiar with the collective bargaining process in the Province and is also well known to many school divisions, as I have pointed out before. Mr. Schreyer, having had expertise in the public sector and knowing the issues dealing with amalgamated divisions, would be very helpful, because, as it was pointed out by the member from Russell, down the road there could be and there may be different disputes, labour differences or collective bargaining differences in the Province and not just related to amalgamated divisions, but possibly amalgamated divisions. So, with his expertise, it would be very, very important to have such a person to be able to call upon.

As I mentioned, Prairie Rose School Division has, to the best of my knowledge, they may have sent an e-mail or a letter today or even yesterday. Certainly we have not received anything. But I would want to ensure that Prairie Rose look at mediation, look at another avenue that would be able to be helpful through the Department of Labour.

As I mentioned, I am prepared to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ashton) to have a mediator put in place to try to get to the bottom of their differences and try to resolve their collective bargaining differences. Now, time will tell.

I hope that the strike in Prairie Rose ends very shortly. If they see that they are unable to do so, I would hope that they would look at mediation immediately. I am not sure whether or not the Opposition, whether or not my critic from Tuxedo would see that as a real advantage or not, to have a mediator put in place.

I guess I take the opportunity right now to ask her whether or not she feels that a mediator would be a good idea.

Mrs. Stefanson: Well, the minister has stated that Mr. Schreyer is not an employee of the Department of Education. Yet the minister has stated previously that this individual was the government representative in charge of being involved in the Sunrise School Division labour dispute.

I am just wondering if the minister could confirm which government department Mr. Schreyer is an employee of.

* (16:10)

Mr. Lemieux: I thank the member for the question. I think it probably is very difficult for Mr. Schreyer to have his name bandied about because he has such a very good reputation and all the parties are very well aware of his reputation and the hard work that he does on behalf of the Province of Manitoba.

As well, I must say and take this opportunity to say that there were some comments attributed to me in the paper about how the Department of Education, how those officials, if they did not look at certain numbers that they should have done so. I certainly want to clarify that, because the Department of Education's employees, as well as Mr. Schreyer, are very dedicated employees of the Province of Manitoba.

I hope that people within the Department of Education did not take any disrespect from the comments I made. I was making a comment that that is something that we as a government looked at prior to, and the previous minister. I was not there, but the previous minister looked at it, prior to amalgamation. We also looked at decreasing enrolment. We looked at geography. We looked at the ability for a division to tax. There are a lot of other areas where we looked at.

I want to make sure I put on public record and put it on the record that the people within the department–and I know the members of the Opposition know this as well as I do, how hard the people within the Department of Education work–and I want to make sure that anybody, any people, any individuals within the Department of Education that were related in any way to Finance understand, who are responsible actually for looking through the different discrepancies prior to amalgamation, and I hope they will take this as an apology from me, if an apology is necessary, because they work extremely hard. They worked very hard and did what we asked of them to assist us in putting together statistics related to amalgamation and helped us in our plan.

So I want to offer that. My deputy minister is with me here today, and other staff. I hope they will understand that the comment was not made in a spiteful way, the comment was made as, of course people should have looked at those numbers, and not as, yes, they should have done that, meaning that they did not do it, so I hope people understand that and accept that.

I would like to comment a little further with regard to Sunrise School Division, and as I have mentioned previously, that we have had people that have asked. I would like to go through a little bit of a chronology the questions that were asked.

An Honourable Member: This is where you get into trouble, Ron; this is where you get into trouble. Be careful.

Mr. Lemieux: No. Number one, one of the members asked that, be careful where you go on this. Well, I would like to go through a couple of things. The member of the Opposition stated, well, how much money was involved? Right? So we informed them. They repeatedly asked, where is this money, how much money is involved? We told people through this Estimates process, through the committee, $112,000 for the first year, $158,000 the second year, $158,000 for the third year. They asked, who asked you for help or who asked you or told you the amount of money that the shortfall was there? We told the Opposition. I have told the Opposition who that is. You have got the superintendent, the couple of members that were on the negotiating team, as well as one of the top people from MAST, from Provencher Avenue, from their head office. So, even though the questions they asked, they are not getting the answers they would like to the questions. Well, maybe because it is not the answer that they want to hear.

So I just want to say that, when you take a look at this process, at least with regard to Sunrise, we have taken a look that there was an invitation to take a look at and discussing the related disparity in the 15% to 60% salary differential. You have had people working very hard to do it. You have had this division who went to mediation, and they believe that going through mediation was a way of solving their problems, as I am asking that the school division from Prairie Rose do and, certainly, look at that option if they are unable to get over the hurdles that they see. So a lot of hard work was done in good faith to assist Sunrise School Division. Certainly, the board and the employees were satisfied with it. They may not have been overjoyed, but that is what collective agreements are all about.

I just want to repeat that the Government of Manitoba has said, with regard to amalgamated divisions, we will assist you in any way we can. There are no guarantees until you go through a process of collective bargaining and get into mediation and/or at least look at those options to try to solve your own disputes at the local level. To the best of my knowledge, and I look at my staff, we have not received an e-mail or letter anything like Sunrise School Division, explaining why they want to meet with us and the disparity in the amounts and so on. So I would just like to also tell you that our Government through the previous minister who worked extremely hard with the school divisions, was able to give increases of 2.8 percent, I believe one year it was 3 percent, another year it was about 1.5 percent and then last year it was 2.8 percent increases, every year in a row at the rate of economic growth, was far superior than what the previous government did.

Now, I understand they prioritized where they were going to put their money and where they felt the money was most needed, and we have heard often from them that tax breaks are the way to go. That is the only way to go. Of course, we know that if that is the approach you want to take, you had better be prepared to also look at cuts some place, and this applies directly to their election promise when they were looking at removing taxation off of land. There is a debate going on now in Manitoba with regard to that. And so, you know, the whole debate around that is an important one. But what I can say is that when you take a look at the challenges that lie ahead with regard to that, and the committee that is coming forward to the Province of Manitoba–which is a member of the Association of Manitoba Municipalities–is going to be coming forward and with a committee, a working group, with a recommendation on looking at what can be done.

* (16:20)

Do you want to raise provincial sales tax? Do you want to close schools? How do you address removing, let us say even in rough figures, $400 million from the education system because of removing taxation?

During the election, the Government could not do it. The Government tried to explain it but when it came down to cutting art, music and phys ed, Manitobans rejected their argument with regard to the way to fund education. What we did in Manitoba was we looked at taking a look at what exactly does the Manitoba Government do.

It is important to note, and I know this may be the only opportunity I get a chance to put it on the record of how our Government supports amalgamated school divisions. When you take a look at 1993-94 school year, there was a 2 percent decrease. A 2 percent decrease with regard to the school year. In 1994-95, there was a 2.6 percent decrease in the school year. 1995-96 school year, there was a zero amount of funding to public school divisions. In 1996, I know that members opposite–[interjection]

The Acting Chairperson (Ms. Marilyn Brick): Order.

I would like to take a moment and remind all honourable members to please provide the courtesy of your attention to the member who has the floor. It is acceptable to carry on conversations at the Committee table as long as they do not disrupt the proceedings.

I believe all honourable members wish to keep the discussion and questioning flowing along constructively, and I respectfully ask for your co-operation in this matter.

Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I appreciate your comments. But, for the record, I think it is important to state that the Member for Tuxedo (Mrs. Stefanson) asked a very important and significant question, a direct question. This minister has now gone on for 10 or 15 minutes, and he is really doing a disservice to the serious question that the Member for Tuxedo asked.

If the Minister of Education (Mr. Lemieux) wants to go on and drag the puck on this issue, he can do that. But I can tell you that when members of the public read this transcript, they are going to be very disappointed that the minister simply refuses to answer the question.

The Acting Chairperson (Ms. Marilyn Brick): I thank the member for the advice on the point of order raised. The honourable member does not have a point of order.

A point of order should be used to draw the Chair's attention to any departure from the rules or practices of the House, or to raise concerns about unparliamentary language.

Mr. Lemieux: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I know t