LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
May 3, 1993
The House met at 8 p.m.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY (continued)
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
FAMILY
SERVICES
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): The hour being eight o'clock, committee will
resume. We are going to deal with item
4.(b) Community Living and Vocational Rehabilitation Programs (1) Adult
Services (a) Salaries $1,110,600.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, I would like to get into the payments to external agencies.
In
the House and outside of the House, the minister indicated that they had to
make tough choices, so they, in essence, decided that they had to give money to
support organizations that were providing service. So they cut funding to those that, in their
judgment, provided primarily advocacy.
Is that correct? I do not want to
put words in the minister's mouth.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, that was one of the criteria that we looked at. I certainly have had discussions with a
number of these groups that do provide advocacy. They, in some cases, may also provide
services to their members and some services to the community. Certainly the ones that were providing what
is generally known as advocacy were part of a group that had some reduced
funding.
I
think that when the Finance minister made his announcement across government,
one of the things that were said was that advocacy groups were one of the
targets. As well, there were agencies
that were providing programs that were not of the highest priority within our
department and what our department mandate is.
Some of them, of course, had gotten into other service delivery to do
with their work within the community.
Mrs. Carstairs: First off, payments that were made today, the
recipient organization, I found it rather interesting that the first two list
in their name that they are advocacy groups, the Brandon Citizen Advocacy Inc.
and the Winnipeg Citizen Advocacy Inc.
While their funding was reduced from, I think, a high of $38,000 to
$34,200, they did manage to maintain a large chunk of their funding as opposed
to, for example, the Association for Community Living.
Can
the minister explain why these two, by their own definition, advocacy groups
managed to survive but the Association for Community Living did not?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I can well understand why the member has
asked the question. I guess part of the
explanation is that these are two groups who work with mentally disabled
clients and perform an advocacy function for their clients and, as such, a
service for those clients.
The
Brandon Citizen Advocacy Inc. assists that organization that is working, again,
primarily with mentally disabled individuals in day‑to‑day living
and in a sort of big‑brother, big‑sister fashion and of course as
indicated, within the city of
The
Mrs. Carstairs: Surely that is a definition of what the
Association for Community Living does.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Again, I do not think there is a clear‑cut
definition of advocacy. Many of the
groups were probably in a broader advocacy role representing their particular
client group advocating government on certain programming and certain
directions. These, it was thought and
felt, because they provided a service to the mentally disabled, were providing
a service that we wanted to maintain.
Mrs. Carstairs: The only new recipient organization that I
could find, unless of course it is a pullout from one of the others, is the
CareerStart transition. Is that a brand
new group that is being funded this year?
It was not found last year.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, it is part of our community living
initiative that we announced in the subject that we spoke about earlier.
Mrs. Carstairs: Can you tell me what was the function of
Abilities Network, because they seem to also be one that does not have its
funding this year, but received some 76.6 last time?
Mr. Gilleshammer: This was a nonprofit association that was
fostering and promoting the effectiveness and relevance of those organizations whose
primary purpose is to provide continuing education, training and development
for adults with intellectual, physical and psychiatric disabilities.
Mrs. Carstairs: It would sound, from the description, that
they were providing a direct service.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Again, I think there is a gray area here
where the previous two groups that the member was asking about certainly
provided a direct service to individuals.
In this case, the Abilities Network was an umbrella organization that
encompassed a number of groups that in fact do provide service.
Mrs. Carstairs: Was there a percentage figure which was used
for all the recipient organizations other than, for example, the ones who had
their grants eliminated altogether?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, there were some that lost 100 percent of
their funding. Others, there was a 10
percent reduction. With some others,
there was a 4 percent reduction.
Mrs. Carstairs: What was the determination for one percentage
vis‑a‑vis the other percentage?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The 4 percent was agencies that we felt could
achieve the workweek reduction model that government is imposing on civil
service staff. The 10 percent was on
larger agencies with a capacity to achieve some savings in efficiencies within
their organization.
Mrs. Carstairs: The housing type models like Ten Ten Sinclair
received no reduction in their funding at all between '92‑93, '93‑94,
whereas some of the other agencies seem to require more of a cut even though
they are also providing accommodation, for example, Main Street Project Inc.
which received a rather massive reduction of some hundred thousand dollars.
Mr. Gilleshammer: With the Main Street Project there was a 10
percent reduction in the grant funding that we gave them. With Ten Ten Sinclair there was a 4 percent
reduction that it was felt they could achieve on the salaries portion.
Mrs. Carstairs: So they got 758 last year and 731 this year.
All right, I see that.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to go
back to some of the comments the minister was making at five o'clock. I could not let his remarks go unnoticed or
uncommented on. He ended on quite a
rhetorical flourish at five o'clock.
Unfortunately, I have forgotten most of what he said. It went in one ear
and out the other, I guess.
However, I would like to say that the main
point of difference between us is his alleged reference to fairness. I know that the minister has heard us say
this before in Throne Speech Debate, in Question Period and in Estimates. We believe that the pain is not being shared
fairly and we will continue to repeat that.
I just wanted to make sure that I got that on the record in reply to the
minister's remarks and then I have some questions.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I might respond with a challenge again. The member has consistently said that in
Family Services we have not made the appropriate decisions, that we are not
showing a sense of fairness within our budget.
I have challenged him to give us some options that he would see as a
direction as a member potentially of a government that may someday have more
realistic thoughts of forming government, and we are still waiting for those
options.
* (2010)
Again I say to the member, the reality of
government is the reality faced by the Premier of Ontario and the Premier of
We
believe in this department that we have shown a sense of fairness in finding
the savings within our department which allows us to make the increases in a
number of areas where we are dealing with very vulnerable Manitobans. I know that before the Estimates are over the
honourable member is going to tell me what some options are within Family
Services that he would lobby for should he ever have that opportunity. I say to the member, these were difficult
decisions that your Leader has recognized on numerous occasions and I am sure
before we are finished maybe the honourable member will also recognize them.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there are some very
specific examples of how we feel that this budget is unfair, for example, the
total elimination of the grant to the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization. In conversations with many
organizations, particularly external agencies that are funded by your
department, we know that different organizations are dealing with their
reduction or even elimination of grants in different ways.
For
example, some executive directors or board members have told me that they are
going to sit down and redo their budget for this year. Others are going to save money primarily from
the workweek reduction that the minister just referred to. Others are going to charge fees to their
members, in some cases, for the first time; hopefully, in that way they will
keep their organization afloat.
However,
Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization really does not have any of those
options. They feel that their staff are
underpaid for the kind of work that they are doing now. They have no ability to reduce staff wages to
continue, because such a large part of their funding comes from your
department. They cannot charge fees to
their members because they are dealing with poor people who probably would not
be able to pay, let alone willing to pay, for service. So I think that is one organization whose
ability to rebudget or to take workweek reductions or charge fees is either
severely constricted or impossible. They
may well end up with having one staff or no staff, and if there is no staff,
there is no organization.
Now
the minister knows that out of the 56 organizations that received no funding,
there are only a very few that we have gone to bat for, and Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization is one of them. If the
minister were to reconsider any decision of the externally funded agencies,
that is the one that I would probably pick out of all of them for the minister
to reconsider. Since this is the first
time we have really gotten into payments to external agencies in any detail, I
would like to ask the minister if he would reconsider the funding decision
regarding Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would be pleased to answer that and note
that the alternatives that were requested by myself have yet to come forward.
The
Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization is one of the groups that I have met
with frequently and will be meeting with again in the not too distant future to
discuss the work that they do. Again, this was one of those difficult decisions
that we had to make within this budget, to achieve any degree of savings. I recognize what the member is saying, to a
large extent, is correct.
Again, these are services that are provided by
the department and where we have staff who work with individuals on social
allowances. So, in some ways, there is a
bit of a duplication of service there, although I do recognize that the
organization did advocate for the system and, in some cases, for individuals,
but then there are other organizations that do that as well. I know that the WORD organization, which is
not funded by government, the
The
other organization that has provided good advice and good background to the
department and to the minister is the Social Assistance Coalition of
As
well, I would point out that the member has indicated that because of the need
for funding, the organization cannot maintain its profile and its work. There are thousands and thousands of
volunteers in society that provide service and provide advocacy for individual
groups. I do not think the member and I
would ever agree whether there is sufficient service and sufficient advocacy
for the disadvantaged who are on social assistance. I would say that there are other groups;
there are other individuals and we do have departmental staff that provide
service to the many thousands of cases that we deal with.
Mr. Martindale: Will the minister not agree that there is a
fundamental difference between the Manitoba Anti-Poverty Organization and the
other two organizations he talked about, namely WORD and the Social Assistance
Coalition of Manitoba?
The
fundamental difference, in my view, is that the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization had a paid staff and an office at
Would the minister not agree that those are
fundamentally different functions of those organizations?
Mr. Gilleshammer: As much as I would like to find some area
where the member and I can agree, I am surprised that he is so critical of
those organizations which have really provided valuable input to the department
and valuable input to government on a number of issues. I can assure him that they certainly provide
individual service.
* (2020)
We
met with the co‑chairs of SACOM many times and listened to the number of
cases that they do individual advocacy and work for. They have many times assured me that they
work with clients on a day‑to‑day basis to help them achieve some
of their goals in terms of education, some of their goals as far as working
within the social allowances system. I
sense from the vast knowledge they have of the legislation and of the system‑‑and,
certainly, I have not asked for any documentation, but I take them at face
value that they do a tremendous amount of work for individual clients who come
to them.
Similarly, with the WORD organization,
although they are small in terms of membership and they do not have a permanent
full‑time staff, they have achieved a number of gains for the disabled
community as a group and for individuals.
I think it is an example how groups like that, which in many ways feel
unencumbered by government, do provide both a service to individuals and good
advice about the system.
Mr. Martindale: Well, the minister is trying to put words in
my mouth. I am certainly not critical of
either of those organizations. In fact,
I support nongovernmental organizations that advocate with government on behalf
of individuals or groups of people. I
would repeat that they are fundamentally different from MAPO, another
difference being that, as far as I know, neither of the other two groups are incorporated
or have a board of directors.
I
can appreciate that the minister gets advice from them and appreciates that
advice, but the fundamental difference is still there. One was an organization with paid staff serving
large numbers of people, and the others were serving less people without any
paid staff.
I
would like to go back to Community Living and Vocational Rehabilitation and ask
the minister what positions have been eliminated by staff cuts to the civil
service in three areas: behavioural specialists, family services workers and vocational
rehab workers.
Mr. Gilleshammer: My understanding is that we have two fewer
staff in that area.
Mr. Martindale: For clarification of those three areas, there
are two fewer staff?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell us what he sees as the
role of his department in meeting the needs of aboriginal people with a mental
handicap?
Mr. Gilleshammer: There is an understanding that in
The
example that I am most familiar with of course is the whole area of social
allowances, where there was once an understanding that as aboriginal members
moved off reserve, the federal government were responsible for them for the
first year.
Similarly in child welfare, the federal
government played a larger role there.
In the area of citizens who access programming through this area of the
department, the province is responsible for off‑reserve services to
Status and non‑Status and because this does not come under the CAP cost
sharing, this is a service provided by
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 4.(b) Community Living and Vocational
Rehabilitation Programs (1) Adult Services (a) Salaries $1,110,600‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $413,400‑‑pass; (c) Financial Assistance and
External Agencies $38,586,800‑‑pass.
4.(b)(2) Children's Special Services (a)
Salaries $223,900.
Mrs. Carstairs: In the last line of this particular appropriation
it talks about Financial Assistance and external. I am presuming that means
External Agencies, but what External Agencies would be covered under this since
none of them are listed?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told this is primarily through per diems
and primarily to St. Amant.
Mrs. Carstairs: What kinds of Children's Special Services
would come under that?
Mr. Gilleshammer: This is the way in which we flow money to St.
Amant, that there is a budget line around $13 million or $14 million that is
accessed by St. Amant for individuals who are clients there.
Mrs. Carstairs: I did not really want to get into this one,
but I was shocked when I saw the St. Amant Developmental Day Care program line
under Child Day Care because it was 413.4 in '92‑93 and in '93‑94,
it is 158.2. I would have thought that
would have come in here.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The daycare program at St. Amant is funded
under the Day Care line.
Mrs. Carstairs: But the Day Care line for St. Amant, and we
can discuss it in detail later on, is some $300,000 less than it was last year.
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct. As part of the review of the St. Amant Centre
that we did in conjunction with them, there has been a change in the way the
St. Amant Day Care Centre is operated.
In this budget year the advice of that review committee was to treat the
St. Amant Day Care in a similar fashion that we treat other daycares in the
province so that the funding levels for the St. Amant Day Care now reflect the
formula we have for funding all daycares.
Mrs. Carstairs: I do not disagree with that except that I‑‑and
this is where I got confused, because I would have thought that those special
needs for those children within that daycare centre might have shown up under
Children's Special Services, but in fact there is a decline. Where is the money coming from for those
children in the daycare that need Children's Special Services?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Within the global daycare budget there is a
certain amount of funding for special needs children. The funding that flows to the St. Amant
daycare for special needs comes out of that formula in the daycare budget.
Mrs. Carstairs: Would that be in addition to the 158 which is
listed under External Agencies Grants?
* (2030)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, that is correct.
Mrs. Carstairs: There has been a decline in the financial
assistance. Is this because there are
fewer children being serviced, or is this just a reflection that everybody had
to take less to do that servicing?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Part of the restructuring that St. Amant has
done with their daycare shows some changes in the way which, for instance,
transportation is being handled. There
is a reduction in the transportation allowance, again to reflect the type of
funding that we do with other daycares.
This was worked out with the board of St.
Amant. The changes in that policy to do
with daycare was done in agreement with the St. Amant board.
Mrs. Carstairs: I am now dealing actually with Community
Living and Vocational Rehab Programs under Children's Special Services. There
has been a decline in the Financial Assistance line from 20.6 to 20.5. Is that as a result of fewer children, or is
that as a result of just the downsizing that everybody has been asked to do?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is part of a budget reduction of 2
percent on the per diems.
Mrs. Carstairs: The 2 percent in per diems for special
services?
Mr. Gilleshammer: For clients of St. Amant.
Mrs. Carstairs: So St. Amant is now receiving less grant to
look after the same child?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The 2 percent is a reduction in the global
figure that we flowed to St. Amant.
Again, I go back to this major review we did in co‑operation with
St. Amant. Part of it was to determine
how they should be funded.
There was some line of thinking that thought
St. Amant should be funded as a hospital.
There was another line of thinking that thought they should be just
funded on per diems. We also had to deal
with an accumulated deficit.
The
outcome and the changes that are taking place in St. Amant are minimal. We have flowed additional money, I think
around $350,000, to deal with an accumulated deficit. Part of our treatment of St. Amant is similar
to other organizations where we have asked them to take 2 percent less and to
find that within their salary structure.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 4.(b)(2) Children's Special Services (a)
Salaries $223,900‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $83,700‑‑pass;
(c) Financial Assistance and External Agencies $20,590,500‑‑pass.
4.(c) Manitoba Developmental Centre (1)
Salaries $20,371,900.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, with regard to MDC, I
think that all MLAs received a recent letter with regard to the staffing
problems or as this individual indicates.
Is it normal for a staff person at MDC to work between six and eight
days in a row straight without a day off?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I am not aware of what correspondence
the member is referring to, but no, it is not a normal practice. We abide by
the civil service guidelines as far as staffing goes.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, in this particular case, they refer to
Monday to a Sunday shift as a regular type of occurrence‑‑Monday,
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday‑‑and they
admit they then get four days off. My
understanding is that is contrary to the labour code.
Mr. Gilleshammer: We are not aware of that and my limited
experience in terms of what the civil service guidelines are, it appears to me
that there are opportunities within there to raise a grievance over an issue
like that. I would be surprised if
government did not have an appeal process following that if the person's
concerns had not been addressed.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, I just give it to the minister because
I received it as correspondence and would ask that they look into it just to
ensure that this kind of thing is not in fact going on at MDC.
The
Supplementary Estimates indicate that there has been a decrease in staff years
which reflects workforce adjustments. It
would appear that there has been essentially 10 staff, I think, reduced in this
staff years reduced. There does not seem
to be a corresponding reduction in the number of clients at MDC. What does this workforce adjustment refer to?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, there is a reduction, I believe, of nine
positions at MDC. I can give you a bit
of a breakdown of those if you like. I
am told that four and a half of the positions are from within the nursing
department, and there have been retirements and resignations there. We are redeploying two positions back into
that area from what was called the transitional unit. One position in the vocational training
department was recently vacated as a result of a promotion, and workshop
supervision and program management will be maintained by redeploying one
position from the transitional unit.
I
do not know whether I have to go into the transitional unit. There has been a unit there preparing
individuals‑‑and it was called the transitional unit‑‑for
transitioning out of the institution.
We
are reassigning that staff because of the fact that a number of these
individuals are part of the pilot project that we talked about before, and we
felt that the transitional unit at this time was not necessary. So the positions that we are downsizing in
MDC, nine of them, a number of them, are being covered off by members from the
transitional unit.
Mrs. Carstairs: There have been a number of significant
structural changes at MDC over the last six or seven years, all of them
desperately overdue. I have to say that,
having been at MDC in the mid‑'60s and having gone back to it again this
summer, there was positive upgrading and the government should be
congratulated.
My
first impression, having gone to MDC, was that I wanted to remove all of the
clients and I wanted to blow the place up.
I
was back this summer, and I must admit I had a more positive feeling about the
type of physical plant. I always felt
the staff was very competent and doing a very good job, but I must say that I
thought the physical plant left a great deal to be desired. And pat people on the back when they deserve
it. The government deserves a pat on the back.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I thank you for that, and I will be certain
that staff pass that along to the staff at MDC.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 4.(c)
4.(d) Child Day Care (1) Salaries $1,818,900.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think we will be
here for quite a while. Probably till
midnight.
I
have a number of excellent letters‑‑
* (2040)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Could I just ask if you wish to stay on this
till midnight there is a possibility that some staff do not have to remain here
if we are not going into child welfare?
And if you want to change your mind‑‑
Mr. Martindale: We may get into Child and Family Services.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Okay.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Would you just stay in the one level though,
at the administration level and that, or‑‑
Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask all my questions on Child
Day Care all at once, of course giving some time to the other critic.
I
am in receipt of some excellent correspondence from people who are very
involved either as parents or board members or staff in child care
centres. I would like to quote from some
of this correspondence because I think it makes a case that I have been trying
to make in Question Period without success, mainly having to do with the impact
of the changes announced by the minister, particularly the increase in fees and
the capping of subsidized spaces.
The
first letter I would like to quote from is from the law firm, Wilder, Wilder
and Langtry.. Langtry kind of rings a
bell. As the letterhead points out, he
is on leave of absence. However, one of his colleagues there, Leslie Tough, has
sent an excellent letter on behalf of the‑‑actually, she is writing
in her capacity of treasurer of the board of directors of Little Bo‑Peep
Children's Day Nursery Inc.
I
would like to quote some of the facts that she presents. She says that Bo‑Peep
daycare is presently licensed for 32 spaces.
However, she says: We have 40
children in attendance, because many share a space due to the part‑time
requirements of their parents. This is
largely a reflection of the current economic and employment climate where
parents are either unable to secure full‑time employment or have been cut
back to part‑time hours by their employers. Thus, the sharing of spaces meets a real need
in our community and in particular for those families who are already
experiencing financial difficulties.
These are people who cannot afford daycare without a subsidy.
We
were originally told that we had been allocated 25 subsidized spaces pursuant
to the recent policy of the provincial government limiting the number of
subsidized spaces permitted. This created a very difficult situation, but our
director felt that we could try to cope with it. However, this was recently changed to cases,
meaning children. Obviously, this
results in a disastrous situation for the daycare and the parents. We will no longer be able to provide part‑time
care for subsidized parents. We will be unable to fill up all of our 32
licensed spaces. The result will be a
loss of revenue to the daycare and probable staff layoffs.
The
purpose of this letter is to draw your attention to this situation and to
respectfully request a reconsideration of the allocation of our subsidized
cases. We do understand the current
economic situation, but the course taken by the
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I would like to begin by asking the minister if the facts
as presented in this letter are the same as what the minister has been saying
in the House. This individual is saying
that they are going to be forced to reduce the number of children in their
child care, and the implication is that they are going to have to lay off
staff.
I
would like to ask the minister if the reason for this is not that‑‑in
the past, two and sometimes more children were sharing one space‑‑that
this will no longer be true and each case will refer to one child.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what we are doing, as
I have indicated to my honourable friend on a number of occasions, is making a
slight reduction in the number of children who are receiving subsidies. In this particular case, and in all cases, we
have looked at the number of children who are in that daycare who are being
subsidized and have been subsidized over the last number of months. The average change is that we will subsidize
one less child than was subsidized there before.
I
think part of the misunderstanding that the member has is if a daycare had 32
spaces, in the past they were eligible to be subsidized for those 32
spaces. What we have done in terms of
downsizing it is to look at the actuals; and, if they actually had 25 children
subsidized there before, we have indicated that we could subsidize 24
children. So there should not be, by
following that logic, a great disruption for any one centre.
I
tell the member, as I have told him in the past, we are capping the system at 9,600. That is‑‑I do not know what the
percentage works out to be‑‑but a slight downsizing by attrition of
the number of subsidized children that we will accommodate in the coming
year. We have indicated that individual
parents can work with the daycare directorate, and we will promise to give fair
treatment to all who want to access the system.
I
think the confusion in the numbers is the difference between what they were
eligible for before and what their actual number of subsidized children in any
particular centre was over the last number of months. So, in changing the system, and we have got
400 or 500 centres that have subsidized children, we in doing this will not
impact any one organization to any great extent.
Mr. Martindale: In the past I have heard the minister explain
the changes as reducing the number of spaces or cases by one child on
average. This time the minister said one
less. I would like the minister to clarify
the difference between reducing the number by one less or one less on average,
and his explanation just now that there is a difference between what they were
eligible for and the actual number of children.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Maybe start with that first, that all of the
daycares are licensed for a maximum number of spaces, and because there was no
capping of subsidies before, that means that all centres and homes were
eligible for as many subsidies as they had spaces. In restructuring and making a small
downsizing of the system, we want to be sure that there is not any daycare centre
or daycare home that is impacted by more than one or two subsidized children so
that there is a sense of fairness to this.
Now, the centres and the homes always have had
a component of children within them that were full fee paying children. I recognize that there were some centres
where there was a greater number of subsidized children, and we are aware of
that and we do not want to impact them anymore than we would impact any other
centre. So, on average, the centres will
not have more than one or two fewer subsidized children.
Mr. Martindale: I thank the minister for that explanation,
and I will certainly be reading it in Hansard to see if I totally understand it
and agree with it and will also be sending it to Little Bo‑Peep
Children's Day Nursery.
I
would like to ask the minister to consider a couple of particular sentences in
this letter and see whether he agrees or not.
Leslie Tough says, quote: We will
no longer be able to provide part‑time care for subsidized parents. Is that true or not?
Mr. Gilleshammer: There has been no regulation change that
would prevent them from providing part‑time care.
* (2050)
Mr. Martindale: The next sentence reads: We will be unable to fill up all of our 32
licensed spaces. Is that true or untrue
in the minister's judgment?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, there are 400, 500 centres, and some of
them have vacancies. They will not have
more subsidies than they had in the past.
They will be eligible for one or two fewer.
As the
world changes out there, people may make decisions to have their children in a
different daycare for a variety of reasons.
Maybe they have moved. Maybe
there is some particular reason that they want their child in a different
daycare, but certainly it is the responsibility of the board and the centre to
attract children and parents to use that centre.
If
they find that there are fewer people wanting care at that particular centre,
certainly they will have to make staff adjustments, just as they have had to
make staff adjustments if their enrollment rises. I mean, that is what the public school system
is doing all the time.
I
understand in the St. James‑Assiniboia School Division that they have
closed 12 schools. I think it is fair to
say that there has been a drop in enrollment and a corresponding decrease in
the staff.
So
there is no guarantee anywhere that all centres will always be full. So there is competition out there, and I am
sure the member will agree that parents will make the decision that is best for
their children and best for their family.
If they decide to go to a different centre, that is their decision.
So
there are always changes at the end of a school year as children graduate from
a daycare and move on to the public school system. There is always, I guess, that pressure on
the centre to try and backfill those spaces.
We are saying that they will have the ability to have nearly as many
subsidies as they had before.
Mr. Martindale: I am also in receipt of a copy of a letter to
the Premier (Mr. Filmon) written on behalf of Inkster Community Child Care
Inc., Maples Day Care, Splash Child Care, Keep Childcare Inc., Sugar‑N‑Spice,
Champlain School Age Centre, Champlain preschool and SPLLASH. They have done a survey of those child care
centres and have discovered that, out of the eight centres polled in Winnipeg
North, we have lost access to 119 potential subsidized cases.
I
would like to ask the minister if he feels that that is an accurate assessment
of those eight centres?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I cannot do the arithmetic for you right
here, but my previous answer should give the member an understanding of
this. If they are licensed for 32
spaces, 40 spaces, their stance on this is that they were eligible for that
many subsidies before. That is true
because we had no cap on subsidies.
Now
what we have done is taken the number of subsidized children that they have had
over the last six months and have indicated that we will be sure that they are
still able, as long as they attract those children, to have the same number of
subsidized children less one or two.
Mr. Martindale: I think these child care centres would beg to
differ. They feel that they have lost
119 potential subsidized cases in their area.
One of the implications for them is a rise in the numbers of latchkey
children. They say: "Parents will leave children to their
own means, and we will see ever rising numbers of latch key children at an
earlier and earlier age".
Does the minister agree that due to the lack of
subsidized spaces, even if, as the minister says, it averages one per centre,
that there are going to be children who are not going to be able to access
child care who will be left at home unattended?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I think the member is getting some
understanding of the difference between the eligible spaces, which were
eligible for subsidy in the past.
Centres that were licensed consider all of those spaces to have been
eligible for subsidy; in fact, that is true in that there was no limit on the number
of subsidies that a centre could access before.
So
we are saying that we have taken a snapshot in time and that those centres can
access the same number of subsidized children less one or two so that they
should be able to maintain the subsidies that they were accessing before with
that small caveat.
That is where the difference is coming. I mean, you can add the number of centres,
and if you have more centres, there were more potential subsidized spaces. We, for the first time, have put some limits
on the number of children that we will provide subsidy for, and we have
indicated that they can work with our daycare staff to make arrangements for
their child care. What the member is
saying has always been true: the parents
will make the decision.
The
parents will make the decision about where their children will receive care,
and surely the critic is saying that decision should not be lodged elsewhere.
Mr. Martindale: Does the minister agree with the eight
centres in north
Mr. Gilleshammer: The parents have the primary responsibility
for making arrangements for their children, and I am confident that the
majority of them will make the correct decision.
Mr. Martindale: I hope that the minister sees the connection
between his policies and what is actually going to happen to some individuals
out in the community.
The
eight centres in north
That is their question, and it is a good
question.
Mr. Gilleshammer: If they have written a letter to me, we will
be sure to answer that for them. What
the member is indicating is that he disagrees with the capping of the
subsidies.
What would happen if we had not done that is
we would continue to be overexpending our daycare budget. Last year, we overexpended that budget by $5
million, and we spent in excess of $50 million on child daycare. Particularly, the major expenditure is in the
area of subsidies.
* (2100)
One
of the advantages of opposition, of course, is that the member can advocate
that we overexpend our budget, but we simply cannot do that.
The
member can look at what is happening in other provinces and see what the longer‑term
results are if in fact you do not live within your budget and you constantly
have these overexpenditures. So I think
that it is important that the member factor that into his thinking.
The
member has not offered alternatives of how we could live within those
budgets. If the member would want us to
reduce the grants, then we would have additional room to pay subsidies. If the member is saying there are savings
elsewhere in daycare, then we could have additional subsidies, but what we are
trying to do is live within a budget of some $47.5 million in daycare. That is $1 million more than last year's
budget.
What we are trying to do is prevent the
overexpenditure of that budget. When
subsidies are available on demand, that is what happens. That is why we were over budget by $5 million
last year. So that is our objective. We are trying to do this in the fairest way
possible so that no centre will be adversely impacted.
The
member did have a glimmer in his eye; I think he has an understanding of what numbers
the centres are giving him as the number of spaces that they were eligible
for. What we are looking at was the
actuals from the last six months, and tried to make a small reduction from that
actual. This is where a big part of the
misunderstanding comes in, and I think that, if the member can grasp that, he
can do a lot to allay the fears of those centres that the amount of dollars
they are going to access through subsidy should not be a whole lot different
from what it was the previous year, provided there is a need in that centre for
subsidized spaces.
Mr. Martindale: I have a letter from the Funshine Day Care
Center Inc. in
Then they make a special case for smaller
centres and parents who live in rural areas, and point out that, unlike urban
areas, rural areas have fewer licensed facilities, and, therefore, parents have
fewer centres to find subsidized spaces in.
They also point out that wages are generally lower in the rural
community; therefore, a large number of people eligible for subsidy will be
vying for a few subsidized spots.
Thirdly, rural daycare centres tend to have many part‑time
users. The author, Lisa Hicks, the
director of the centre, says: I feel
part‑time users should be able to share a subsidized case.
As
a result of this change in policy, will part‑time users be able to
continue to share a subsidized space?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have referred to the subsidies in terms of
the number of children that were accessing subsidies before, and I do not know
how many licensed spaces they have in that particular daycare, but if they were
accessing subsidies for 20 children on average over the last six months, they
would now be eligible for nearly that many.
As I have indicated to the member, we are going to do this by
attrition. We are going to try and
manage it so that the average is respected and we will not impact any one
centre to any great degree.
I
am seemingly having trouble getting the member to accept that, and I think it
goes back to the distortion of the system that occurs when you accept that all
of those spaces that they are licensed for were eligible for subsidy before,
that no centre will be impacted by more than one or two subsidized spaces.
Mr. Martindale: Just to make the Clerk of Committee's job easier,
I would like to make the point out that I tabled the letter on the letterhead
of Inkster Community Child Care Inc. on behalf of eight child care centres.
(Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
In
the case of the Funshine Day Care Center in Virden, they say that they have 25
cases allotted to their centre, and currently have 27 subsidized children. Does that mean that they are going to lose
two children to their centre?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The information I am given is they are
licensed for 35. The six‑month
average was 25 subsidized children; they have been allocated 25.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask a general question based
on the minister's answers and this correspondence. I am wondering if, since these decisions were
made a few weeks ago, and child care centres, hopefully, have had a chance to
study them, does the minister believe that child care centres now understand
the changes and why the policy is being made?
The
correspondence that I have suggests that there is still a lot of confusion out
there, although these letters were written‑‑April 21 in one case,
April 21 in another case, I have an undated letter, and April 30. One of them at least is fairly recent. Do you think that the child care community
understands these changes now and how they were arrived at?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am given information by my staff that there
is a greater understanding of the system now than there was probably when those
letters were written. I guess that is
understandable in that we have had an opportunity to have some face‑to‑face
meetings with centre directors and boards, and that we have been able to return
some of the correspondence that has come forward on this issue.
I
guess maybe it is fair to say that the communication that has taken place
through the press based on comments that are made by honourable members in some
cases served to make the understanding of the issues a little more
difficult. The Day Care office has had
an opportunity now to meet with those directors and, as I have indicated,
return some of the correspondence. Of
course, there are those who put their own interpretation on the changes to suit
their own purposes. Sometimes that plus the communications, because it is
delivered through the media, does not give that accurate picture of the changes
that we are making.
So
we have tried to have as many meetings as possible with daycare centres, their
staff, and to provide them with some understanding of the changes.
Mr. Martindale: Since the minister and his staff seem to have
a lot of detailed information at their fingertips, I would like to ask him
about the Winkler Day Care Centre. They
have written a letter to the editor of local newspapers and pointed out: There is a cap on the number of subsidized
cases each centre can accommodate. For
Winkler Day Care Centre, the cap is at 34.
We currently have a caseload of 41.
This is because rural centres have always had more part‑time
children in care.
I
wonder if the minister could tell us what the changes are at the Winkler Day
Care Centre.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The centre that the member references, I am
told, is licensed for 36; the average subsidized caseload or number of children
is 34; and their allocation is 34.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to go on and quote from this
letter to the editor some more because they talk about the impact of
changes. We may disagree on how the
changes were arrived at, but I am convinced that the impact is, as these child
care centres say.
This one is, I think, particularly worth
reading into the record. They say, and I
quote: These funding cuts will cost the
government more money. Parents who are
unable to access a space because of the cap on spaces will not be able to take
jobs. Parents who are unable to pay the extra $1.40 per day per child are
quitting their jobs. For these families
social assistance is the only alternative.
For a family of two parents and two preschool children, $1,180 lies
within the range of monthly social assistance benefits. The cost of child care for the same family,
even if they are fully subsidized, is $696.
In addition, working parents pay taxes.
Without question these funding changes contradict the very reason they
were implemented. They will cost the
taxpayer more money.
* (2110)
I
would like to ask the minister if he believes that is true. They are giving two different scenarios. One is a parent who is employed and the
children are in a fully subsidized space.
They also point out that parent who is working is paying taxes. The other scenario is that the parent is on
social assistance, and they quote an amount of $1,180 for social
assistance. Does the minister agree with
this letter which says that it will cost the government, cost taxpayers, more
money to pay this family social assistance than to subsidize their child care.
Mr. Gilleshammer: It is difficult to talk about specific parts
of that letter without looking at the total letter and putting it in
context. But let me refer to these
numbers again. They have 36 licensed spaces. They had 34 subsidized children. They will continue to have 34 subsidized
children. So I am not sure that the
catastrophic results that the member is referring to are going to happen here;
they are going to have the same number of subsidized children today and later
that they had over the last six months.
So the member can get into talking about whether people are better off
working or whether there is a cost to the system if they are on social
allowances. That is a completely
different argument, and one that we got into under the social allowances.
What we are saying is, the confusion in the
mind of the member still revolves around the number of spaces that they were
eligible for before, because they were eligible to have subsidized children in
all their spaces. There is no great
impact on this centre. So to talk about
people having to be referred to social allowances and staff layoffs and salary
reductions does not really make a lot of sense, so that you have to look at
each individual case.
What we are saying is that we are going to
review the average number of subsidized children that they had before and give
them no more than one or two less than they had before. So the impact, in going from 10,000
subsidized children to 9,600, should not affect any centre to any great degree.
The
distortion that the member is making was most evident when he talked about the
eight centres before, where you took the cumulative number of spaces that they
are licensed for and then said, they now have lost all of these subsidies. I forget the number, but there were hundreds
of them.
Well, that is not reality, and I think the
member is not doing a service to the community if he continues to distort those
numbers. I think the member understands that
we are trying to manage the downsizing of the system so that no centre will
have too great an impact on it.
Mr. Martindale: I certainly was not attempting in any way to
distort reality, and I appreciate the minister's explanation, particularly of
the individual situations such as Winkler Day Care Centre.
If
we look at the more global picture, what is going to happen to the 400 parents
who are not able to access child care because of the cap on the number of
spaces? Does the minister believe that
some of those parents will end up on social assistance, that some of them will
drop out of the paid workforce because they cannot find suitable child
care? If so, does the minister agree, as
this letter to the editor suggests, that in some cases it will be more
expensive if those families are on social assistance than if they are working?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I will explain again that the downsizing of
the system is going to take place by attrition.
We are not pushing anybody out of the system. We are not eliminating anybody from the
system. As the normal course of changes
takes place, we are going to have people leave the system during the course of
this year as we do every year.
In
many cases, as these children access the public school system, that family no
longer requires that daycare space, and, in the course of the coming months, we
are going to downsize the system from 10,000 subsidized children to 9,600. We have more than 400 centres and homes
within the province that are licensed to care for children, so we are going to
try and manage the system so that no one feels too great an impact.
If
we were to accept the numbers that the member was putting on the record
earlier, that they are losing 10 subsidies, 12 subsidies, 16 subsidies per
centre, we would be losing far more than 400 subsidized spaces and children
within the system. So that is where the
distortion comes.
Again, I think the member would do a service
to that community if he would get his mind around that and be able to represent
the manner in which we are doing this.
Mr. Martindale: I will certainly do my best to get my head
around this. You can be sure that I will
be photocopying the questions and answers in Hansard and sending them to all
the child care centres that I have named.
Hopefully, that will help to clarify the situation for them as well as
for myself.
I
would like to ask the minister: How will
the 9,600 spaces be prioritized for subsidy?
Will parents who qualify for a partial subsidy count first?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We, I guess it is fair to say, are assigning
those subsidies to the centre, and the management and the board of the centre
will make those decisions. We rely on
them to treat the people who come forward to access services in a fair and
reasonable manner.
Mr. Martindale: There seem to be some problems in accessing
the special social needs subsidy. I
would like to ask the minister what the criteria are for acceptance. Is a referral from a professional in social
work, public health, sufficient? Or
whose advice is relied on to access the special social needs subsidy?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is a program that we have not altered,
and that decision may be made by the agency or by professionals within the
department.
Mr. Martindale: The minister and I have had questions in the
past about the child benefit, and we know that in
* (2120)
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member is correct that all provinces had
a decision to make on the flow‑through of a lump sum or monthly payment
from the federal government. This
decision is not unlike other decisions we had to make as new programs came into
the system. Probably the one previous to
that was the GST rebate, where the decision was made to flow that through as
exempted income. So every province and
every jurisdiction in the country had the duty to make a decision on the new
child benefit. Do you allow it to flow
through as exempted income, or do you tax it back or claw it back from social
allowances?
We
were probably the third or fourth province to make a decision to simply flow it
through. It was a substantial amount of
money and a big decision that we took a little bit of time to understand. Not every province has done that. The
Now
this is not related to the decisions that we are making around daycare. I have been very open and up front about
those decisions. We were overexpending
an already large budget. While we wanted
to increase the budget, print over print, we wanted to be sure that we lived
within that budget, and to do so we have made some changes. There were different ways to do it.
We
could have achieved that $1.40 savings by cutting back even further on the
subsidies, or we could have maintained the subsidies and made that $4 or $5 a
day. We thought we would take a balanced
approach that would maintain as many subsidies as we could and not upset the
manner in which those centres operate and, at the same time, ask for a
contribution from those that are receiving the subsidies.
Yes, we could have done things differently
there. We could have prorated those
subsidies or that payment by the subsidized parents and called for lesser
amounts from those who are fully subsidized and a greater amount from those
that were only partially subsidized, or the other way around. There were a lot of decisions made in the
daycare area.
I
point out our budget, print over print, is still going up around $1 million, but
we felt we had to live within that budget.
We did that by freezing the spaces, by capping the subsidies and by
asking for this contribution from those who were getting the subsidy.
Mr. Martindale: Is it correct that there is a freezing of
licensing on both group and family daycare spaces?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct. However, we are reviewing some requests that
have come in to license some additional spaces where there is no cost to the
government. We have people who want to
expand some spaces or create some spaces where they say, we are prepared to
accept government regulations, we do not need a grant and we do not need a
subsidy. We are going to be moving ahead
with some licensing in that area.
Mr. Martindale: So if I understand the minister correctly,
you are going to license for profit on subsidized child care. Is that correct?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We are going to license some additional
spaces for those who meet the criteria and who say that they do not need a
grant and they do not need a subsidy. I
can think of a particular church group who want to start a daycare, and they
say they do not need any government assistance of any sort, but they have to be
licensed and we are going to move ahead with some licensing there. So this would apply to both the nonprofit as
well as independent centres.
Mr. Martindale: How does the government plan to monitor the
proliferation of unlicensed caregivers?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, we do have staff in this area of the
department that are responsible for licensing.
They are responsible for monitoring the system.
What the member is saying is, should we have a
watchdog on those parents who want to perhaps have their grandparents look
after the children, their neighbour look after the children. If people are making individual arrangements
with family and friends, I do not believe government has a role to play in
monitoring that system other than we know how many spaces are there, we know
how many subsidies are there, and we do have the capacity to monitor those who
are accessing the system.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us how the three
changes that he just reiterated are being implemented? In 1991, there was a restructuring which I
understand had a three‑month lead‑in time. These changes are being made with a very
short notice time. Does he feel that the
staff are able to cope with what is probably a great deal of paperwork in a
very short period of time? How are these
new policies being implemented?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, they are being implemented by the
existing staff. There are certain times
when if there is a need for additional assistance surrounding the subsidies or
if there is additional pressure on the Day Care office, that we have the
ability to give some assistance from other areas of the department.
Mrs. Carstairs: Thank you, just a brief question in one area
and then I want to move into the whole area of subsidy.
The
minister indicated that he was willing to look at some applications for
licensing for groups that required no funding. I recently wrote to the minister
myself with respect to a group which is operating presently a child care centre
and wants to start up another one. Their
principal direction is ORFF music and art.
So it is a unique kind of program that they offer. They have more than
enough children to fill the space. Is
that the type of re‑examination that the minister is prepared to look at?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, that is correct. We have been in touch with them to make those
arrangements.
Mrs. Carstairs: I thought I understood the subsidy issue and
then I got very confused in the middle of the explanation. So perhaps we can start again and clarify me.
Is
it possible to in fact have more subsidized spaces in a child care centre than
the actual licence? For example, the
child care centre is licensed for 36 spaces but, because of a mix of children,
some using it two days a week, another using it three days a week, those 36
licensed spaces may actually be used by 46 children.
* (2130)
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct.
Mrs. Carstairs: Is it possible to have 46 subsidies for a 36
licensed space?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct.
Mrs. Carstairs: Will it still be possible‑‑this
sounds like a courtroom‑‑to have 46 spaces with subsidy in a 36
licensed child care centre?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, there have been examples where there
were, to use your numbers, perhaps 40‑some subsidized children in a
daycare with only 36 spaces. What we are
saying is that they made up those 10,000 subsidized children that were in the
system before, and we are going to bring that down to 9,600 subsidized
children. But, yes, you do have this
phenomena of more subsidized children than you have spaces, because they attend
on a part‑time basis.
Mrs. Carstairs: It is my understanding that some of the
confusion around this issue is that the vocabulary that was used to explain
this referred to licensed spaces as opposed to subsidy spaces. So some of the child care centres took it
into their head that, if they had 46 children using those 36 spaces, they were
now only going to be eligible to have 36 subsidized spaces, and therefore they
were going to lose 10.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, this confusion, I think, is largely
being cleared up as we meet with centres on a one‑to‑one basis, and
I guess different people are using different terminology, whether it is spaces,
cases or children. I think what is most
understandable for me is if we talk about the number of subsidized children.
Mrs. Carstairs: All right.
So the goal here is that, on average, no child care centre will be asked
to lose more than one or two subsidized spaces?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Cases, children.
Mrs. Carstairs: All right, subsidized children.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Right.
Mrs. Carstairs: Thank you.
I think that clarifies it a bit in my mind anyway and, hopefully, in
some of the child care centres' minds, at this point in time.
With respect, however, to the decrease in 400
spaces, I would like some clarification with regard to the minister's numbers.
Now, the Estimate of Expenditures for this department last year was $46.7
million. I understand that was overspent
by $5 million so that approximately $51.7 million was spent in this
appropriation last year. Is that
correct?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The adjusted‑‑the vote for '92‑93
was $46.7 million, almost $46.8 million.
We expended actually $52.7 million.
So there was an overexpenditure of between $5 million and $6 million.
Mrs. Carstairs: So actually as far as child care or daycare,
this particular appropriation, the minister is estimating that for this year he
will spend approximately $5 million less than he spent last year, or the
government spent last year, not him personally.
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct.
Mrs. Carstairs: How much of that $5‑whatever million
will come from a subsidy?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Last year's actual was 33.7, and this year
the print will be 29.7. So there is
difference of 4 million there.
Mrs. Carstairs: I assume that the balance of that will come from
the 4 percent cut in the grant to each individual centre.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, that is essentially correct that there
will be a difference of about $1 million on the grant line of that in daycare.
Mrs. Carstairs: So in reality the poor are being asked to
come up with another $4 million this year to balance the child care budget.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, we are indicating that there will be
fewer children eligible for subsidy, and I gave the subsidy range the last time
we met. I point out to the member that
that is on net income. Certainly the
majority of the fully subsidized children are at the bottom end of that system,
and it goes up to $55,000‑56,000 salary for that family on a net basis.
Mrs. Carstairs: What was the reason the department determined
that it would be those receiving subsidy that would pay more for child care
rather than those who receive no subsidy?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, what the member is asking is, how do we
withdraw a number of million dollars from the child care system. We are doing
it partially by reducing the volume of the subsidies. We are taking some of it from the
grants. We could have put up the cost
per day and had the whole system adjust that, but it would have impacted much
more on those who are paying the full amount.
We
are withdrawing about $5 million from the amount that we pay; about $1 million
comes from the grants and about $4 million from the subsidies, but there will
be fewer subsidized children.
Mrs. Carstairs: No, the minister is not just doing that. What the minister is doing is charging people
who have an income of $16,000, a single parent with two children, and that
woman will end up paying an additional $650 for child care because she is going
to be charged‑‑I see the Premier (Mr. Filmon) not quite
understanding that figure, but we went through it the other day. It is a $1.40
per child times two, times five, times 52 weeks a year; or if you want to make
it 50 weeks, I will settle for $650.
So
we have a situation in which that woman, or man if it is a single‑parent
father, will pay an additional $650 a year, but a person earning $50,000 will
pay no additional fee for child care above and beyond what they paid last year.
I
just want to know how the government made that determination, that they would
hit the person at the lower income as opposed to people at the upper income.
Mr. Gilleshammer: As I indicated before, there were options
that would achieve the same ends, but we have really done three things in
freezing the licensing, capping the amount of subsidy, but also asking the
parents who have subsidized children to make a contribution. What the member is saying is that others
could have made a greater contribution, but using the example that the member
put forward, the cost to government for that person with the two children in
the system is between $8,000 and $9,000 that the government is contributing to
that subsidy. So there are different
ways of doing it. We felt that this was
a fair way of adjusting the system, given the fact that we are still spending a
million dollars more on the daycare line, print over print, as we did last
year.
Mrs. Carstairs: With respect to the changes that have been
made in the reduction of subsidized spaces, what happens in the situation where
the parent who has the child in the child care space becomes unemployed? I understand they now can only keep that
child in a subsidized space for two weeks.
If they do not find a job at the end of that two‑week period, then
they must withdraw the child since they do not have the money and they will no
longer qualify for subsidy. Is that
factual?
* (2140)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, the person who is unemployed can
maintain that subsidized space for a two‑week period as they look for
work.
Mrs. Carstairs: When that person then finds employment, as
hopefully he or she will, is there any guarantee they will then get back their
subsidized space?
Mr. Gilleshammer: If the daycare where they were accessing that
care has a subsidized space available, then they will have access to it. We are assigning those subsidized spaces to
that daycare centre, and they will be the ones who attract or enroll children
within their centre with the number of subsidized spaces that we are assigning
to them. It is possible, if they have
taken another subsidized child in that person's place, that person may have to
get that service from another daycare or make other arrangements.
Mrs. Carstairs: If a child care centre actually replaces a
subsidized child with a nonsubsidized child, that is, the subsidized child
leaves and a nonsubsidized child fills that space, will that mean that child
care centre has lost that subsidized space forever, or will they still maintain
the same number that they had at the moment that child left?
Mr. Gilleshammer: If they attract a full‑fee‑paying
parent, then they will not need that subsidized space, and I think while we
would not want to start juggling the system immediately, if we have got centres
who are backfilling with the paying parents and others could use that subsidy,
I think part of the management of the system would be to allow that subsidized
space to flow to another centre.
Mrs. Carstairs: What is the operation of the child care
office when an individual finds himself in a situation where they cannot find a
subsidized space and therefore cannot take advantage of a job opportunity? We had a question of that nature in the House
the other day. What is that particular
person to do? Are they to not take the
job?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We would do everything within our power to
identify a space for them, and the Day Care office, part of their
responsibility is to keep an eye on the system and be able to identify spaces
for individuals, whether they are in centres or homes. Given whatever flexibility we have within the
system, we would certainly want that person to take that job, and we would do
our very best to see that they found a space.
Mrs. Carstairs: What is the degree of computerization of the
child care office and how up to date on a daily basis is their information
about spaces available?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I think it is fair to say that there is only
a modest degree of computerization within this particular branch of the
department. Certainly it pales in
comparison to a couple of other examples that I could use. Again, if we had the resources, this would be
a need within the department to upgrade the automation in this area.
Mrs. Carstairs: What is the policy with regard to smoking in
child care centres?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Smoking is not permitted in centres.
Mrs. Carstairs: Is that also true in licensed family child
care spaces?
Mr. Gilleshammer: No, that is not the case there.
Mrs. Carstairs: Why not?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I suppose it goes back to the fact that the
service is provided in a home. There is
a guideline, I believe, that indicates that the caregiver cannot smoke in the
presence of children.
Mrs. Carstairs: Is the department aware of the centres in
which one of the caregivers does in fact smoke?
I mean, is that information that is available to families?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, in the centre, smoking is not allowed.
Mrs. Carstairs: I mean the family child care.
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is information at the present time that
is not lodged within the Day Care office.
I guess it is fair to say that when a parent is attempting to identify a
space, whether it is in a centre or in this case if it is in a home, it is a
question regarding the home that they should ask.
Mrs. Carstairs: I ask the question because in fact I did
receive some correspondence from a mother who had a family child care space
recommended to her. She apparently
informed the child care office that her child was an asthmatic, but it did not
make any difference because the space the child was referred to was one in
which the caregiver smoked.
I
suppose it is hard to know how to get around that, except for trying to impress
upon those working in family situations that children are very susceptible to
secondhand smoke, and they should not be exposed to it if that is at all
possible.
Mr. Gilleshammer: It is an issue that I am aware of because I
think I received the same letter, and it happens to be from out in western
I
believe there are some powers of persuasion to make and to help caregivers
understand more and more that is an issue in the workplace. The difficulty in licensing in a home is
that, if you are going to have home‑based care, there are some limits as
to how far you can make demands on the people who also make that their
home. It is an issue that I have become
aware of, and I do believe that we are going to put our minds to how we can
best handle that situation as we work with home providers.
Mrs. Carstairs: Are there any additional child care spaces
being built in conjunction with schools?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Not at the present time.
Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister tell me why that policy was
dropped? I mean, it was, as you know,
initiated under a former government minister who made it a policy that, if a
community wished to build child care spaces in co‑ordination with the
school, then the Minister of Education was prepared to work in
conjunction. It seemed to me,
particularly in terms of both before and after school care and in a sense of a
neighbourhood development, that it was a good policy.
Mr. Gilleshammer: It is an issue that we have spent
considerable time reviewing. One of the
issues in conjunction with this is the cost of construction; there often is
space in the community nearby which can be used, in some cases converted to
child care, at a fraction of the cost of new construction. We have had discussions between staff in our
department and staff in Education looking at this issue.
* (2150)
The
demand has, I think, been modified to a certain extent in that a lot more
licensed spaces have come into the system in the last few years.
I
can recall, when I first became a member in 1988, there were considerable
discussions that there were not enough licensed spaces, that there were waiting
lists everywhere. Well, we have licensed
in excess of 3,000 more spaces today than existed in 1988, and we no longer
have this great demand for space and waiting lists. That has been addressed. So that is part of the equation as well.
It
is a subject of some ongoing discussions with Education and with community
groups and with school boards, but at the present time we have not licensed any
more, and I do not think there are any on the horizon.
Mrs. Carstairs: It is true that there are additional spaces
out in the community than existed before.
However, there also has been a major recession and a very large number
of unemployed, and a number of people have removed their children from child
care spaces because they quite frankly do not have jobs, and therefore one or
the other is staying at home and looking after the individual child. So I anticipate that, if we go back to a
better employment situation, we may yet, once again, have waiting lists for
child care spaces in the
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is true.
It is difficult to forecast down the road into the next few years, but
if that happens, then certainly I think we have to look at again licensing
additional spaces. Our budget has
increased dramatically, as I have said before, and we will have to view the
situation at that time and make the appropriate decisions.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, would the
minister agree that the result of eliminating 400 spaces is that there will be
no part‑time children in the licensed child care system?
Mr. Gilleshammer: With respect, I have to disagree.
Mr. Martindale: In a letter to child care providers, dated
April 8, 1993, it says: Each subsidized
case at your facility refers to one child, whether that child is enrolled on a
full‑time, part‑time or extended‑hour basis.
What incentive would centres have to accept
children who are part‑time, given the effects that will have on their
budget?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I guess what the member is saying is it is
more convenient if you have children enrolled on a full‑time basis and
they are fully subsidized. The member
for
It
is possible that in a centre with 36 licensed spaces, they could have 40 or 42
subsidized children. So what we are
saying is that the 10,000 children that were subsidized in the system last year
were a combination of part‑time and full‑time, and we are going to
work that down to 9,600 children.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
There certainly are many, many families and
children that are only accessing child care on a part‑time basis. So centres have been accepting children on a
part‑time basis for a long time. I
know in Langruth centre, that we have had many discussions of, they have many
more children enrolled than they have licensed spaces. This is probably true of a number of centres
where they accept children on a part‑time basis and the subsidies flow
with those children depending on their circumstances.
I
do not see the system moving to completely full‑time children within the
system.
Mr. Martindale: The minister has announced that operating
grants are being reduced for licensed daycare centres by 4 percent, and for
licensed nursery schools by 50 percent.
The 4 percent reduction is in line with the workweek reduction, so I
could understand where the minister might get that figure, that
percentage. But what is the rationale
for reducing operating grants for nursery schools by 50 percent?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The nursery school is, of course, vastly
different than the daycare centre. I
think it was only two years ago that the grants to nursery school were only
being given to half of the nursery schools in existence. This was the policy of the previous government
that some nursery schools received a grant and some did not. We changed that policy a year ago, I think,
so that all nursery schools receive that grant.
So in looking at the nursery school grants, and they were small, only I
think it was less than $1 million was devoted to those grants to nursery
schools, and, of course, they provide a different function.
These are, by and large, stay‑at‑home
parents or parent, who want to have their child involved in an activity with
other children at a nursery school. It is
an option that is different than the daycare where presumably the parents are
going to work and need that care. In the
case of the nursery school that is not so.
We did take a different view of them.
We did take a different look at them, and made a decision to reduce
those by 50 percent.
Mr. Martindale: It seems to me that if centres continue,
particularly nursery centres, the reason is that they are being subsidized by
low wages and poor working conditions in that most staff have very few
benefits, and the absence of a pension plan.
Would the minister agree that the effect of
these changes is that staff will continue to be underpaid and therefore
undervalued for the kind of work that they do, and that the pressure on wages
and benefits will be downward rather than upward, particularly in centres where
the staff and board are unable to collect the fees from parents.
I
already know that in many centres they are unable to collect the dollar‑a‑day
fee. Now it is $2.40. Many of these parents are on social
assistance and unable to pay that. So
boards, of course, are faced with making very difficult decisions‑‑you
know, one of this minister's favourite expressions‑‑and having to
offset the loss of revenue from parents paying this per diem fee.
Would the minister agree with this statement
that those centres that continue to exist will do so because the staff are
subsidizing the system through low salaries and a lack of benefits and a total
lack of pension plans?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I find it difficult to agree with the
analysis that the honourable member puts forward. I am not sure how he viewed the system before
when the party of which he is an active member funded some centres and did not
fund other centres. Would he apply the
same criteria to the thinking of the government of the day then when a number
of these nursery schools got no funding at all?
I do not think there was a pension plan then, and I do not know whether
the amount of salaries has changed downwardly since that member's party was in
government.
* (2200)
Mr. Martindale: This minister has announced reduction in the
job search period from eight weeks to two weeks. I believe this eliminates accessibility to
child care for those who are unemployed.
For some of those people it is going to perpetuate the cycle of poverty
that they are in and a continued dependency on social assistance.
We
know that we have a high unemployment rate.
The jobs are difficult to come by.
Today in Question Period I quoted statistics from Statistics Canada on
the average number of weeks that people are on unemployment insurance. I believe it is 23 or 24 weeks.
How
does the minister believe that his policy is going to improve the
situation? I would say that it is going
to make it much worse for parents who are looking for employment or university
students whose children are in child care, and at the end of the school term,
they have two weeks, or upon graduation they have two weeks to find
employment. Does the minister really
believe that this is reasonable and that it is going to help people to get off
social assistance and find employment?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The individuals who want to access this
provision still have the ability to get subsidized care while they are
searching for a position, albeit not as long as they were able to do so
before. For those students, of course,
they do not have to wait until the day of their graduation to seek employment
and are, I am sure, seeking employment in the weeks preceding their
graduation. For sure, this a reduction
in the number of weeks.
Again, it was part of what we thought was a
fair package to live within an expanded child care budget. Again, I am not sure what the member is
advocating, whether we should be increasing that budget by $5 million, $10
million, $15 million to keep all of those parts of the program that were there
before or simply to allow the budget to overexpend itself without making these
corrections or these restrictions on the system.
But
I have said clearly, we had made an attempt to live within that budget and
increased it to $47 million. There are
changes to help us to stay within that budget, and I do not hear any
alternatives coming forward. I am sorry
my honorable friend is distracted here because I thought I was giving him some
good information that he would want to get tonight instead of having to read it
a day or two from now. [interjection]
Well, I am hesitant to repeat myself, but
there are changes that have been made to the system. I do not know what better advice the member
would have for us to live within that budget, but perhaps he could give us that
advice at this time.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I think I just might at this time ask if it
is the will of the committee to take a 10‑minute break just to stretch
your legs.
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Ten minutes.
* * *
The committee took
recess at 10:04 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at
10:12 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Committee can come to order. We were dealing with 4.(d)(1) Salaries
$1,818,900.
Mr. Martindale: Well, I would like to go back to reducing the
workweek and respond to some of the comments that the minister put on the
record. The minister always gives us a
false dichotomy. The minister always
says, you know, what is the alternative?
Spend more money.
The
problem with his government is that they only consider the choice of reducing
expenditures to reduce the deficit without considering other alternatives,
because philosophically they do not really believe in job creation. They only believe in lessening the amount of
government and the cost of government and basically believe in the old adage
of: less government is the best government.
I
think that the alternative is to help people to access the job market, to make
it easier for people to find employment, because we know that when people are
employed they are paying taxes. People
when they are employed feel better about themselves. People who are employed usually have higher
incomes than people on social assistance, although not always. In fact, for people with large families
working at minimum wage, probably their income is lower, but probably they are
willing to trade that off for the benefits of being employed. But even they need access to child care, so I
believe the minister has made the wrong choice in this case, because I believe
it is going to be more difficult for people to access employment if they do not
have affordable child care or even access to child care.
Now
I would be quite happy to discuss this again next year in Estimates and see
what the effects are of this government's policy, and certainly we will know
from talking to child care centres what happens to parents who cannot find a
subsidized place.
It looks
like the minister wants to respond to these comments.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am not sure what the learned member means
by a false dichotomy, so I will not get into that because that is brainy stuff,
but he was on the verge of talking about other alternatives. I think we are really making some progress
here if we are going to really get these other alternatives out.
What I hear him saying is that his view of a
Conservative government is that less government is the best. The opposite, I suppose, from the socialist
point of view is that more government is better. If you want to talk about dichotomies, then I
do not understand where Bob Rae is going when he lays 4,500 Hydro workers off
from Ontario Hydro, or where he takes 20,000 civil servants and says: Most of you are not going to have a job, and
we are going to have to develop a social contract with the rest of you to
downsize and pay less.
I
notice the member is not listening as attentively as he was before, but again
we are faced with this reality of government‑‑
Point of
Order
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: No, it is a point of order.
Ms. Barrett: Point of order. The government of
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Gilleshammer: I respect that she did not have a point of
order.
This shows the dichotomy, whether it is false
or real, between those who govern and those who are in opposition, and the
honourable member's fellow traveller at the federal level now is indicating
that Bob Rae is doing the wrong thing.
So, again, I point out to my friends in the opposition that it is fine
to be in opposition and criticize and not have to come up with alternatives,
because you are not in the position where you are in government.
So,
yes, there is a downsizing of government in all provinces at this particular
time, and it is only the opposition that are saying, hire more government
workers, hire more people with Ontario Hydro, hire more people to run the civil
service. Every other government and even
governments that are going into elections in the Maritimes and are being re‑elected
because it reflects what the public mood is at this particular time. I dare say that Premier Rae and Premier
Romanow are reading that correctly, and I am surprised that my two learned
friends from the NDP do not see that is the road that all governments are
taking at this time.
Now, the honourable member says that job
creation is the answer. Well, when last
the NDP were in government job creation consisted of making work, and where are
those jobs today? They do not
exist. There are still the remnants of
some of those signs to be found about the province, but the jobs do not exist.
Do you know what does exist? The debt,
the hundreds of millions of dollars that it cost government of the day to
employ those people temporarily, because those jobs no longer exist. As your Leader says and said very
emphatically, people were counting flowers in the ditches of
What does work is keeping the taxes low and
leaving that income in the hands of the consumer, and the consumer is going to
spend those dollars. That the opposite,
raising the sales tax, raising the income tax, raising the corporate tax does
not work, and in fact the one thing Bob Rae did in the last budget was to lower
the corporate tax because in government he realizes you cannot keep taxing
corporations, those jobs will disappear.
Now what we have also done is to eliminate the tax on jobs, the tax that
was put there on employees.
An Honourable Member: Partly eliminated.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member says, partly eliminated, and he is
correct that we have eliminated systematically more and more of that tax. Again, I see the NDP wringing their hands and
saying, oh, there is another tax gone.
Bring back that tax. Well, I will
tell you, the way to stimulate the economy is to keep those taxes low, and only
now is
* (2220)
You
can go to western
Even New Democrats are saying in
I
would be surprised if you do not make the front pages, too, in supporting Bob
Rae and supporting Steve Langdon. I do
not think that the member is going to get fired as Steve Langdon did, but the
public is asking real hard questions.
Where do the New Democrats stand on these issues when they see Premiers
in Saskatchewan and Ontario making those difficult decisions, yet opposition in
some jurisdictions are saying, no, create those flower‑counting jobs and
those green sign jobs that disappear; continue to spend hundreds of millions of
dollars and have no lasting benefits; and yes, tax, raise the sales tax, raise
the income tax, create new taxes. It
simply does not work any more.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I would like to remind all honourable members
that we are dealing with 4.(d) Child Day Care (1) Salaries for $1,818,900. It might be wise at this time to deal with
that line.
Mr. Martindale: I would certainly like to thank the Deputy
Chairperson for that reminder to the minister.
I am going to ignore his rambling polemic and ask questions on the child
care budget.
Could the minister tell us what is happening
to the daycare volunteer program funding?
I believe there was $5,000 a year which was channelled through the
Manitoba Child Care Association. Since
they are no longer receiving their grant, I wonder if the minister can tell us
what is happening to that funding.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member is correct, that was part of a
flow of funds to the daycare union. The
funding has now been terminated, but the decision on that program will remain
with the organization.
Mr. Martindale: I wonder if I could ask for
clarification. Did the minister say that
the $5,000 will continue to flow through MCCA?
Mr. Gilleshammer: No.
Mr. Martindale: Who is receiving the $5,000?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have discontinued that funding that was
channelled through that organization, but the program is still continuing.
Mr. Martindale: Who will receive that funding, or how will it
be disbursed or spent?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Government is no longer providing that
funding, and decisions made within that organization to continue the program
will be with their own resources.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister some
questions about commercial centres. I
understand that commercial centres may have 25 percent of their spaces subsidized
and that the province cannot recoup this money through the Canada Assistance
Plan, which normally they could do on a 50‑50 basis. Is that correct?
Mr. Gilleshammer: What the member has related is basically
correct.
Mr. Martindale: Is it true that the province gives commercial
centres an additional subsidy, or a grant, to equate payments to the operating
grants that nonprofits receive?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct.
Mr. Martindale: Will this continue in this budget year?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes.
Mr. Martindale: Well, I would like to question the
government's priorities. Since there is
a limited amount of funds available, I think that priority should go to
nonprofit centres and not to commercial centres.
Another issue is that nonprofit centres, I
believe, are more accountable in that they have a board of directors to whom
they are accountable and to my way of thinking, they are a more public
institution than commercial centres. I
wonder if the minister agrees with that.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I agree that there are differences between
the independent centres and the nonprofit centres. I think those differences are part and parcel
of the choices that parents can make in terms of determining what care it is
they want for their children.
Mr. Martindale: It seems obvious to me that this government
also has choices to make and that you have chosen to continue subsidizing the
commercial sector as well as the nonprofit sector. Given that there are limited funds available,
what is the rationale for continuing to subsidize profit‑making child
care centres?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, there are alternatives out there that
parents have for care for their children.
We believe that parents should have some choice as to what kind of care
they would want to access.
It
seems to me that the member is moving in the direction of saying there should
be only one kind of care acceptable to government. That may be the view of himself and his colleague
and his party, but we have said, over the course of the last five years, that
there are different types of care available that government will support, and
the decision remains with the parents.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us how much the
Mr. Gilleshammer: The cap recoveries for all children is the
same.
Mr. Martindale: So treaty status makes no difference in terms
of child care programs?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that the cap recoveries are the
same for all children.
Mr. Martindale: Is it true that social assistance will pay
for private babysitter fees on behalf of a welfare recipient?
* (2230)
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that there are certain
circumstances where the social allowance program does provide funding for that
type of child care.
Mr. Martindale: If that same social assistance recipient
found a licensed unsubsidized space, would social assistance pay that fee as
well?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Sorry, could you repeat that?
Mr. Martindale: If that same client or social assistance
recipient found a licensed unsubsidized space, would social assistance pay that
fee too?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told the answer is no.
Mr. Martindale: I am glad to hear that, and I do not need to
ask my next question.
I
would like to go back to the impact of the changes of this government, the
capping to 9,600 cases or spaces or children, whatever the case may be, and
also the increase in fees. I understand
that a national daycare study found that the majority of children are not in
licensed care and that low‑income parents in particular use an informal
child care system of friends, neighbours and babysitters. I believe that by increasing the fees to
$2.40 a day, what you are doing is limiting access to affordable child care by
low‑income families and also by students, by aboriginal people and by new
immigrants. I believe that this
disadvantages those people who can least afford to be disadvantaged, including
in terms of child development.
We
know that there are many advantages to children being in a child care centre in
terms of child development. Just one of
those is that children who have speech problems or behavioural problems or
hearing problems, any number of different problems, that those problems become
identified by the staff at child care centres and the result is that remedial
action is taken much sooner for those children.
That probably saves not just a lot of anguish
and grief on behalf of the individual and their families but probably saves the
system or saves the government money in the long run, in that, if problems like
hearing impediments are corrected early it probably helps the children to
progress normally or more normally in their education. So I think it is advantageous to have
children in the child care system, partly for the advantages that accrue to
child development and to identifying problems.
Would the minister not agree that is the case?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would agree that early diagnosis, early
detection and early remedy is beneficial in a whole variety of cases with a
whole variety of people.
Mr. Martindale: But the minister, at the same time, has no
problem with limiting access to parents who cannot afford child care and who
need affordable child care and for whom the fee of $2.40 a day is a
barrier. Does the minister not see any
contradiction between agreeing with the statements I made and at the same time
limiting access?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I do not know whether I agreed with the
statements the member made or not, because there was quite a variety of
them. I said I thought early detection,
early intervention and early treatment were beneficial to a whole variety of
individuals in a variety of cases.
Mr. Martindale: I have a number of questions about children
with mental handicaps and child care.
The first is, how many children with mental handicaps currently receive
daycare on an integrated basis in regular child care centres?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have a group of
children with disabilities for whom we provide program funding. The number of
children that were served last year was 529.
Mr. Martindale: What kinds of support, such as staff grants,
equipment or training, are child care centres eligible to receive if they have
one or more children with mental handicaps?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I can tell my honourable friend that staffing
grants are the main grant support offered directly to daycare centres and to
nursery schools. Start‑up grants
provide funding for renovations and equipment needed to accommodate a disabled
child and to provide extra toys and educational materials not usually available
in a community daycare centre.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Training grants allow staff to receive
additional training specific to the child in their care, and due to current
restraints, it is not possible at this time to approve those start‑up
grants. Supplementary daily grants are
available to programs and family daycare homes that do not access staffing
grants.
So
the type of assistance that those 529 children are accessing come through
staffing grants, start‑up grants, training grants and other supports
offered by the Day Care office.
* (2240)
Mr. Martindale: Are all centres requesting supports receiving
the supports to achieve quality integrated services?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I think it is fair to say that there are a
number of centres that have taken on the responsibility to handle the children
with disabilities. Rather than disburse
the resources across a wide variety of centres, there are certain centres who
have made this their specialty, and the required support is channelled to them.
Mr. Martindale: Which of the centres currently receive staffing
grants for integration support, or are there too many to list?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We do not have a list available today, but
there are a number of them. In addition
to that, certainly the St. Amant Centre and the Society for Manitobans with
Disabilities have a significant program.
As well, there are other centres. Perhaps I can get that information for
our next meeting or I can get it to the member at another time to give you a
cross section of those centres that provide that service.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the minister for
agreeing to provide me with a list or a partial list at some time in the
future. What additional supports are
centres receiving besides staffing grants?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I indicated that there are staffing grants,
start‑up grants, training grants and supplementary daily grants to those
particular centres.
Mr. Martindale: Are there more or less spaces available this
year for individuals with disabilities who require additional support?
Mr. Gilleshammer: It will be very similar to last year.
Mr. Martindale: What kind of training is available to child
care staff and boards regarding integration practices for children with
disabilities?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that training is offered through St.
Amant Centre.
Mr. Martindale: I understand that a number of child care
centres have children with fetal alcohol syndrome. Do those centres receive any extra funding or
supports to help with those children? I
assume that it requires more staffing for those children.
Mr. Gilleshammer: For those children that would fall within the
children with disabilities program funding, they would get that support.
Mr. Martindale: Do children who are diagnosed as having fetal
alcohol syndrome fall within those criteria that the minister just mentioned?
Mr. Gilleshammer: In some cases, yes.
Mr. Martindale: Then in some cases, they do not. So are there child care centres with children
with fetal alcohol syndrome where there are no extra grants or support or
training?
Mr. Gilleshammer: This is done on a case‑by‑case
basis, and they are dealt with individually.
Mr. Martindale: How does the Child Day Care office decide
which centres get extra support and which ones do not?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told there is an assessment committee
that would assess these situations on a case‑by‑case basis.
Mr. Martindale: I have been told that there is one centre
where there are seven children with fetal alcohol syndrome and no extra staff
or dollars. Since I do not know the name
of the centre and the minister has said that it is on a case‑by‑case
basis, what is the best way to deal with this problem? Should the centre be applying for extra
support for these children?
Mr. Gilleshammer: If any particular centre has an issue around
children with disabilities or any other issue as far as that goes, they
certainly are aware that they can contact the Day Care office to state their
issue and have whatever support they need discussed with the Day Care office.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to move now into family
daycare. I would like to‑‑first
of all, the issue of smoking. I was in
receipt of a letter, as well as the Liberal critic, and as far as I know, I
only know of one parent who raised it as an issue. However, when I contacted the
Family Day Care Association and also the Manitoba Child Care Association, both
of them said their organizations would favour a regulation prohibiting smoking
by residents of a family daycare home.
In
fact, the board of the Manitoba Family Day Care Association wrote me a letter
dated April 13, and I quote: We as
members of the Family Day Care Association of Manitoba support the introduction
of a bill that will require all family daycare homes be smoke free as a requirement
for licensing.
Now, it is not quite as complicated as they
assume. It would not require a bill; it
would merely require a regulation or a change in the rules‑‑a
regulation, I guess, similar to child care centres. I believe Regulation 12(5) says, smoking
shall be prohibited in the presence of any child in the daycare centre.
I
would like to see something like that for family daycares. I believe that
smoking is a very big public policy issue.
In fact, I contacted the Manitoba Lung Association before I asked
questions of the minister in the House, so we have lots of statistics about the
number of deaths due to lung cancer, for example. We know that this is a huge cost to society,
which basically means it is a huge cost to government and therefore to
taxpayers.
I
think that is why governments have been very supportive of groups in the
community like the Manitoba Lung Association in banning smoking from hospitals
and from institutions. In fact, I
believe it was an opposition bill that was supported by all three parties
during the minority government that banned smoking in public places. I think there are many, many good reasons to
justify that. It seems to me that it is
appropriate to extend that, as far as we can, into more and more areas of life.
I
think this is an opportunity to extend it into family daycare homes, and part
of the rationale would be that this is public or government subsidies that are
providing the income for at least one parent in a family daycare home. I think that is another reason why it could
be changed, why regulation could be brought in.
I
would like to ask the minister what his view is on approving a regulation to
prohibit smoking in family daycare homes?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I guess maybe this goes back to the previous
page, where the member said he was in favour of more government and more
intrusive legislation than what we as government would support. The policy at the current time is that the
care provider cannot smoke in the presence of children. Let me just see if I am framing this
correctly. What the member is saying is
he would like to see legislation which banned smoking completely within that
home, I presume, on a 24‑hour basis.
* (2250)
This is where we run into some difficulty
about what people can or cannot do in their own home. I think the member would see that it becomes
difficult to pass a law in this area. I
think we can probably achieve our goals by education rather than
legislation. It would be the method that
I would prefer proceeding in, but the one letter that he has received probably
is the same one letter that the Liberal critic has received and may even be
perhaps the same letter I received.
I
think we are prepared to work with the relevant association and to work on the
area of education rather than creating more laws that would intrude into
someone's home.
Mr. Martindale: Well, once again, the minister is putting
words in my mouth when he says that I am advocating more government and more
intrusive legislation. In reading the
regulation for child care centres, it says, smoking shall be prohibited in the
presence of any child.
I
am wondering if the minister would consider the same regulation for daycares
which‑‑you know, in reading this regulation again, it does not go
quite as far as I was advocating; it just says, not in the presence of a
child. It seems to me that in a daycare
home or a family daycare home, you could prohibit the smoking in the presence
of a child rather than banning smoking totally from that home. Is that the policy now?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct. So I think we have substantial agreement
here.
Mr. Martindale: Well, I am glad we have substantial agreement
on something. So the regulation for
daycare centres is the same as family daycare homes. Well, I am grateful to hear that we can agree
on something.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I suspect that we have agreement on a
substantial number of issues and that the member is‑‑as he reads
over the dialogue that has taken place over the course of the day, we get
closer and closer together in our view of things.
I
know that the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) would agree, because we did
agree earlier on an issue she had, that we would move in a direction that would
have us analyze and monitor the number of homes that are currently in her constituency
and work with the community. So I would
say on more than one issue there has been some agreement today, and I am
pleased about that.
Mr. Martindale: Well, we will have to make sure that this
agreement does not go too far on too many subjects.
I
would like to ask the minister: What are
the regulations for family daycare providers regarding hot beverages? I have the regulation for child care centres
which says the drinking of hot beverages by adults in areas in which children
are engaged in play activities is prohibited.
Does that regulation apply to family daycare centres as well?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have the booklet of regulations here, and
I will be reading it to you in a moment so that we can both understand this
better.
I
am told that this regulation is for centres, where it says a licensee shall not
permit the drinking of hot beverages by adults in areas in the licensee's
daycare centre in which children are engaged in play activities. That is Regulation 14(7). When you revert to daycare homes, again,
because this is a home setting with people making that their living quarters
and living accommodations, it is not encompassed in regulations in the same
manner.
Mr. Martindale: Since this would seem to be a safety issue,
would the minister consider extending this regulation to family daycare homes?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I would certainly raise with the
department the number of documented complaints that we have had in this area,
and if it seems to be an inordinate amount that are coming forward, then I
think it would be incumbent upon us to move in the direction of taking some
remedial action.
Mr. Martindale: So the minister is willing to move on it if
there are a number of documented cases.
Is that the only reason why the minister would do this?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, we tend not to want to try and resolve
problems where no problem exists. Again,
maybe this goes back to the member's view of more government and more
intrusiveness into the lives and homes of individual citizens.
Mr. Martindale: This minister really is quite amazing. He has taken what I have considered to be a
safety issue and translated it into a government intrusiveness issue. Your ability to twist and contrive things is
really quite amazing.
Point of
Order
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member is
asking whether there is a problem. I
have said, if there is a problem we will address it. If there is not a problem, then I have no
problem with the status quo.
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Reimer):
I would say that the point of order is out of order. It is just a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Martindale: The minister was quoting Regulation 14(7) and
I had Regulation 12(6). So obviously I
am not as up to date as I should be. I
wonder if I could get a copy of the regulations from the minister so that I can
be well informed, current and up to date.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, we would be pleased to provide the
member with a copy of the regulations.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to move onto another issue. This one has to do particularly with the
Family Day Care Association. When I talked to them a couple of months ago, I
discovered that they were in receipt of monies from the federal government,
training money in the amount of $361,719.
When the funding changes were announced and
their grant was eliminated, they were concerned that they would not be able to
deliver this training with the federal grant.
I wonder if the minister can tell us if that fear was well founded or
what has happened in the meantime. Are
they continuing to deliver that training?
* (2300)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Our understanding is that the grant that was
forthcoming from the federal government is in place.
Mr. Martindale: Was there a provincial grant promised for the
same period as the federal grant of $168,217?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The funding that the family daycare training
program was discussing with the
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us what the training
money was for and if the Family Day Care Association was the organization that
was delivering the training?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that this program offers three 10‑month
training sessions with 20 participants enrolling in each session. Participants who successfully complete the
requirements of the training will receive a New Careers certificate of
attainment from Manitoba Education and Training. Some credit towards the child care services
program is provided by
Participants for the first year were drawn
from within 60 kilometres of the
Basically, that is the overview of the program
and again, I would indicate the provincial money is housed in Education and
Training and probably the member could get more details in those Estimates.
Mr. Martindale: Just one last question then: Will this training continue and if so, who
will provide it?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that our anticipation is the
training will proceed.
Mr. Martindale: Will the Family Day Care Association of
Manitoba be the organization that the money will be channelled through or the
organization that is providing the training?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Our understanding is that organization is
receiving the funds, any funding from the federal government on this initiative
and their discussions over provincial money are with the Department of
Education.
Mr. Martindale: I have a newspaper article describing a
seniors daycare centre. It is my
understanding that there is no regulation governing senior daycare
centres. I guess that is not surprising,
given that this is a fairly new service being provided in the community, but I
would be interested in knowing the minister's thoughts and also his
department's policies‑‑first of all, whether the minister thinks
they should be licensed or not.
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is an area that is beyond the
jurisdiction of the Department of Family Services. At the present time, our responsibilities are
with the children's daycare programming.
The
member is, I guess, asking to engage in some discussion of whether we should be
creating programming for seniors. To
some extent, that is the responsibility of the Department of Health as they are
responsible for the personal care homes that exist within the
In
many rural communities, there is an activities department within that personal
care home that provides programming for the residents and also extends
invitations to citizens within the community to participate. Whether we need a more formalized system is a
debatable point.
Again, I sense that my honourable friend is
looking for expansion of government programming and having government create
new regulations in an area where none exist outside of the personal care homes
at this time. I am not sure that debate
has really taken place in the community and whether the public, the taxpayer,
is demanding that a new service, a new function for government be established. I am I think led to believe, although I have
not done a lot of thinking in this area, that by and large the community is
looking after the needs of the elderly through the Manitoba Society for Seniors
that have brought many, many ideas to government.
We
have created a ministry responsible for seniors in
Again, this is the danger that we get
into. I think we have told the volunteer
sector, in many ways in services provided by this department, that we do not
need you anymore, that the services provided by volunteers and the church are
not valued anymore, that government will look after you. I think that has not necessarily been a
really positive thing. I would hate to
see government tell the MSOS and the seniors organizations and the communities
that you no longer have to be involved in this, that government will organize
centres for the needs of the elderly. So
I guess if the community is looking after this at the present time, I do not
know whether government needs to necessarily get into this activity.
Mr. Martindale: We will refer questions on this to our Health
critic since, as the minister points out, it more properly falls under the
responsibility of the Department of Health.
I am disappointed that this minister seems incapable of making a
distinction between raising legitimate issues of public policy versus
government becoming more involved. I
think these are legitimate issues of public policy, and I was not inferring,
although the minister wrongly accuses me of inferring, that there should be
more government involvement.
I
just have one or two final questions on the daycare budget. Will subsidized families be reassessed as the
result of the changes that have been announced to subsidies and fees, et
cetera?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that reassessment has already
occurred.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 4.(d) Child Day Care (1) Salaries
$1,818,900‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $510,700‑‑pass;
(3) Financial Assistance and Grants $45,137,400‑‑pass.
Resolution 9.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $132,604,400 for Family Services, Rehabilitation, Community
Living and Day Care, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1994‑‑pass.
We
are now going to move on to 9.5 Child and Family Services. Provides for the co‑ordination of child
and family services through the provision of program and administrative
direction and funding support for services.
5.(a) Administration (1) Salaries $354,500.
* (2310)
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, maybe I will start
with one of the smaller items. My
apologies if I do not ask questions in the proper line here, but I know that
the minister is very competent and capable of answering any question at any point.
One
of the organizations that I have been lobbied by that this minister‑‑
An Honourable Member: We never, ever, ever do that.
Mr. Martindale: I think it does not hurt to compliment the
minister once in a while. I would not
want to do it too often, but once a day, I am sure, it will not hurt, unless it
goes to his head, of course. I am sure
the minister has noticed there are great differences between his critics, his
former critic and current critic.
I
am sure that the minister has been lobbied by the same organization that has
been lobbying me. It has to do with
changes to adoption laws. Is the
minister willing to take some questions on adoption laws at this point?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Thank you very much. Modest though I am, I do appreciate those
kind words and the recognition that the member recognizes that there are many,
many difficult decisions that have to be made within this department. These decisions have to be made with a
certain balance. As we get more and more
into these Estimates and the member gets a better appreciation of all of the
different areas of the department, his recognition of the issues will grow, and
his appreciation of the department will also grow. The kind words that he said tonight were
simply echoing the words of the previous critic who frequently made the same
comments. I have always appreciated
them.
Yes, we would be pleased to take questions on
adoption.
Mr. Martindale: The minister is going much too far. I only said he was capable of answering
questions at any place in the Estimates line.
I did not say he was capable all the time of everything. With that caveat attached, I will ask my
questions.
If
I can recall what people are saying to me, they are saying, we think we should
have access to all adoption information.
I know that not all parents who adopt out children want that to
happen. There are parents who, for very
legitimate and good reasons, do not want children who have been adopted out to
have access to those records. So there
is an issue of confidentiality here and an issue of permission.
My
limited understanding of the system the way it works now is that both
confidentiality and limits are respected, that people do not have access to
adoption records unless permission is given, unless both parties have agreed to
some kind of match‑up.
I
guess my first question would be, is that the way the system works now? And if not, perhaps the minister could
explain the current system that is in place.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I think the member has characterized the
system very well.
Mr. Martindale: Has the minister received any representation
from groups wanting to change the system, especially to totally open it up,
which I think is their goal? Have they
communicated their requests to you as the minister?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes.
Mr. Martindale: What is the minister's position on the
requests that they are bringing forward on changes to adoption laws?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, this is an extremely sensitive area
that I think we have to respect the confidentiality of the people who are part of
this discussion. There are those who
would portray this as a simple request or demand that can easily be resolved,
but I can tell you from looking at all sides of this question I would think
that any changes in this area would have to be brought about with great care
and that these changes will come about very, very slowly because of the need to
preserve the integrity of the system and the commitments that have been made to
people who are part of the system.
Mr. Martindale: So I take it that the minister is not
contemplating any changes now to access to adoption records?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We do have what is called the Post Adoption
Registry, which is there to facilitate the individuals who want to access
information. That Post Adoption Registry
works. To some, it works much, much too
slowly, but again, I think that it is necessary to preserve the confidentiality
of those who made decisions in the past and who believe that a commitment was
made to them. The Post Adoption Registry
will work where there is a willingness on the part of the different individuals
who are part of the system to make some connections.
Mr. Martindale: One of the areas of tension and controversy
around this whole issue is access by people to marriage and birth records. Just by way of illustration, I happen to know
that in the United Church this is a problem in that in the past, archival
records were totally open to the public, and now we have made a policy change
and decided to restrict access to them, the reason being that people are
tracing their parents through church archival records. So some of the same issues are present, and
we have put some restrictions on access to those records.
I
am wondering if this is a problem in Vital Statistics, if people are trying to
access marriage and birth records in order to trace their parents.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I am really quite interested in what
the member is saying about the experiences of the
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us if the Post
Adoption Registry is matching up people any more quickly or any more slowly
than in the past? I know that people in
the community are concerned that if they do not act quickly or find someone
soon, it will be too late due to death.
Have government cutbacks affected the Post Adoption Registry process?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Our statistics show some increased work in
that area to address those issues, and it reflects an addition in staffing in
that area.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us how many more
staff have been added?
* (2320)
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told there is an addition of two staff
in that area.
Mr. Martindale: Does this make a difference? Does this speed up the process of matching up
people?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to go on to another issue
beginning first of all with Winnipeg Child and Family Services Agency.
The
minister, I believe, has repeatedly said that in spite of government cutbacks,
for example, eliminating grants to external agencies‑‑well, I
believe a number of this government's policies have implications for Child and
Family Services. I believe that all of
those implications are for greater demands on the service.
At
the present time we have the director of the Winnipeg Child and Family Services
Agency, Mr. Keith Cooper, saying that their staff are already overworked, that
they are understaffed. Now, as the result of policies not by this minister, but
by the government as a whole, there is a workweek reduction.
So
there is going to be, I believe, a large and significant reduction in the
number of staff hours that all Child and Family Services agencies will have to
deliver service. My first question would
be, since this is Estimates and we can get into a lot more detail than Question
Period, how does this minister plan to ensure that an adequate level of service
is delivered with 3,000 hours of less staff time for the Winnipeg Child and
Family Services Agency?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I indicated to the
member before that prior to budget decisions being released, we had a lengthy
discussion with the presidents and the executive directors of the three
southern agencies to indicate some of the budget decisions that were being made
that were going to impact on their agencies.
We
talked about a number of things, including the workweek reduction that is part
of overall government planning to control the deficit and the budget, and acknowledge
that there were significant challenges there that have to be met in the
provision of services. The various
functions of the agencies were discussed and looked at, that for sure we are
not saying that the same number of people could do the same number of work in
fewer days. But management was of the
impression and the view that through their organization that they could do
their very best to manage the workload.
At the same time, it is incumbent on the directorate to be in touch with
the agencies to discuss with them some of the ways they were going to manage
this decision. It was the view that we
could work together and co‑operatively on this.
If
the member recalls, in the previous year we did dedicate some funds to workload
relief projects, and we do have some money in the budget to assist with this in
the coming year.
Mr. Martindale: How much money is in the budget for the
coming year for the workload relief program?
Mr. Gilleshammer: There is $600,000.
Mr. Martindale: Will some of that money be used to offset the
fewer hours of staff time due to the workweek reduction?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The money will be dedicated to specific
projects related to the overall workload.
Mr. Martindale: I have talked to one of the board members of
a Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency who says that the agency cannot
provide the same level of service with 3,000 less hours of staff time. They made a very interesting comment. They said, there is no down time in Child and
Family Services.
I
would like to ask the minister if he believes they can deliver the same level
of service in spite of the workweek reduction?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have just indicated the recognition that
the same number of people working fewer hours are not going to do all of the
things they did before, and that management will be involved in prioritizing
some of the activities and seeing that the agency still functions in the child
protection area where their most vital work is being done.
I
would again remind him there is the possibility of using some of the money
dedicated for workload relief. We have
also added some significant reform to the system, which we had an opportunity
to discuss before in the SIS system and the high‑risk indicators.
So
there are changes taking place within the agencies and in the manner that the
agencies do business. I would say to the
honourable member that it is an area that is one that we are going to monitor
very carefully. I think, in any
discussions I have had with social workers, they feel there is always more time
that they would like to devote to more and more clients, because we are talking
about some of the neediest individuals and children in our society.
I
can tell the member from spending many years of my working life working with
students, that a lot of professional time and effort can be put toward the
needs of specific children, and sometimes the changes that you would like to
see take place do not. In that way it
can be very frustrating work.
* (2330)
When we look at the front line service
providers in the Child and Family Services agencies and the proliferation of
agencies and the treatment programs that we have with the big four agencies and
with the private treatment agencies, we certainly have more staff time, agency
time, treatment time being devoted to children in Manitoba than many other
jurisdictions. The question really is,
when will we ever have enough? It is
difficult to say because as long as there are children who are running away
from placement, as long as there are children within the school system, within
the agencies where we are not fixing them, there is still more work to do.
It
is a very tough debate that often takes place within the department, how can we
be more effective with the resources we have?
Certainly those who work in the system are saying the automation is
great, the Child Advocate is a major step forward, the high‑risk
indicators are a major step forward. All
of these changes have been very positive.
At the same time that we have had the development of more and more
agencies, more treatment beds, there is still a real call on the system to find
ways to provide more treatment, to provide more service.
An
area that I am interested in is the number of different places that people can
access service from government. I think
I told your colleague this case last year, and you maybe would have missed it
so I will repeat it. There are families
that have social workers assisting with that one child who come from the
justice system; another social worker comes from the health system; another one
comes from income security; and a fourth one comes from the child welfare
system, all trying to work with that one child.
Something that we have been trying to get our minds around is the co‑ordination
of service. I think this is exactly what
the report that was brought forward by the trustees association, the school
business official, the principals association and the MTS group was getting at.
We
need to find more effective ways of using the large number of resources that
are currently there. So there are many
challenges in the system, and they will continue to be in the system. I think that the agencies and government are
working very positively as we bring more reforms on line to address these
cases.
Mr. Martindale: I can certainly appreciate what the minister
says in terms of the challenge, having worked in the inner city for 10 years
before I was elected and currently representing a constituency that could be
described as mostly having inner city characteristics. I certainly know the challenge is out there
in the community to Child and Family Services agencies and other organizations
in terms of the problems that children have that they try to deal with.
Also I am quite aware of families that have
three or four social workers or even more organizations or agencies involved
with one individual or one family. I
frequently have been lobbied by an individual who used to work for an agency
whose office, I believe, was located on
I
guess at one time it was in existence and was terminated. There may be a need
to revive something like that for some, what shall we say, multiproblem
families.
I
have been told that some Child and Family Services workers are being told not
to apprehend children. I am wondering if
the minister can tell us if that is true or not. I would certainly like to be assured that it
is not true. I am wondering if the
minister has any information about this.
Mr. Gilleshammer: It is not something that has come from
government that we fund those agencies that operate within a mandate. I raised this with the director of the
He
tells me that the agency has not changed their direction to their staff. So I guess I am commenting on what the member
clearly says is a rumour that circulated from someone. It is often difficult to deal with these
things, but that is not a direction of government and it is not a direction of
the
Mr. Martindale: When the Filmon government fired the 100
community volunteers serving on the boards of six regional Child and Family
Service Agencies and replaced them with appointed board members, I think the
system in
Now
that has changed somewhat in that there has been an election recently in
But
I have some specific questions. Could
the minister tell us what the attendance record has been of the six paid board
members?
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Gilleshammer: I do not have any information on the
attendance at board meetings. The member
has indicated that he is speaking to board members from time to time. I would urge him to contact the chair of the
But
the member, in reviewing the history of child welfare in the city over the last
couple of years, again, is partially correct.
I appreciate that he recognizes some of the positive things that have
happened.
* (2340)
The
member from
But
I would say to the member that part of the changes that have taken place allow
for more attention to be given to service where there is the ability within the
agency to combine some of the functions that happen in six different places in
the past. I remember reading a newspaper
article of the chair of one of the boards, whose name escapes me at the moment,
who said: Yes, there are many functions
that could be better handled centrally and referred, I believe, to accounting
and to the recruitment of foster families, of a number of other issues that
have, of course, been amalgamated within the agency.
I
appreciate that the member recognizes that there is a role for the community to
play. I am pleased that there are more
volunteers working in the system today with the
Another issue that has been addressed is the
fact that there were areas of the city where foster homes were more readily
accessible than in other areas. Now
access to those foster homes can be shared.
So
many, many positive things have happened, and I am pleased that the member
acknowledges that. Again, I would say
that it is still an area where more positive changes, I think, can take place,
and I am pleased that we have made great strides in sharing the information,
sharing the change, and bringing about a number of positive aspects of child
welfare which can be applied evenhandedly across the system here in
Mr. Martindale: Given that one of the rationales for
recentralizing the Child and Family Service Agency in
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am pleased that we do not have the millions
of dollars of deficit that the minister would have to go back to central
government to address, that we have been able to live within a budget. The member referenced the fact that he and a
friend of his attended the annual meeting and that there is an accounting of
the board and audited report that if the member wants that information, I am
sure that it is available.
So
there is, I suppose, a difference in attitude about the planning of
expenditures with the new board. I would
hasten to recognize that there were boards that took great pride in the past of
being fiscally responsible and that we must not judge all of the agencies by
the manner in which some of them responded.
So
there was a divergence of the manner in which boards conducted themselves in the
past, but basically, we are pleased with the fiscal management of the current
board.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): The member for
Broadway‑‑pardon me‑‑Burrows.
Mr. Martindale: I know that the government House leader wants
us to go till midnight, but he will have to try and keep all his members awake
if we are going to do that.
My
understanding is that in the past the Child and Family Services Agency received
money from United Way, but I understand that it is the policy of United Way not
to give funds to government organizations.
I think a change was made this year and that grant was withdrawn from
the Winnipeg Child and Family Services Agency, which raises a number of
questions. First of all, is my
understanding correct that a grant that was made by the
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would say that there is a positive
relationship that has developed between funders that are funding some of the
services in the city of
So
as federal funding that was once available for some of these programs
disappears, there is always a call for somebody, whether it is the province, the
city or other funders to backfill. So I
think that the relationship between the United Way and the Winnipeg agency is a
very positive one, where they are perhaps doing some realigning of the
priorities which will allow them to both continue funding some of the common
programs.
Mr. Martindale: I was told that the
Mr. Gilleshammer: There is an issue that the member has
identified there, but I think that by realigning some of the priorities and
some of the funding that they have historically been involved in, the same
level of service will be continued in a different way.
Mr. Martindale: Now we are getting close to the real
situation. The minister has almost admitted that what I said is true, that
there was a grant from
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am sorry if the member is having a
difficult time understanding what I am saying, but I will say it again. There
has been a level of funding from the United Way to the Winnipeg agency which
they are rethinking to have the agency fund some different components of
service that are delivered in the downtown area or in areas where service is
provided by the agency, and the agency perhaps take on some different
responsibilities. So there is a co‑operative
working relationship that exists between the
Mr. Martindale: I can understand that the United Way may be
rethinking and that they may be co‑operating with the Child and Family
Services Agency in shuffling money around to different organizations, but it is
my understanding that they lost a grant for a particular part of their
programming and, therefore, they have fewer resources to deliver the same or
even greater services in the city of Winnipeg.
So can the minister tell me how they made up the money that they lost,
or how they plan to provide the service without the money from the
* (2350)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Maybe I can try again. The $600,000 that we spoke of before in project
money is being used for a number of programs that the agency is continuing to
offer. The commitment of the
The
Winnipeg Child and Family Services have made a commitment to support alternate
service providers in the community. They
have entered into a service and a financial arrangement with the following
community‑based programs. One of
them is the adolescent parent centre; a second is the Moms and Babes program of
Mount Carmel Clinic; a third, the parents' community centre; a fourth,
So there
is an outreach component of what the Winnipeg Child and Family Services do, and
this is work that is somewhat similar to what the United Way does, so that the
funding, I guess is what I am saying to the member, that is going to support
certain services can be flowed directly from the United Way to those services,
and other funding comes from the Winnipeg agency to support another group of
services.
While there is a different funding arrangement,
similar services are still being offered and there is a demand for more. There
are more groups out there. There are
more people with ideas. There are more
organizations that want enhanced funding or funding backfilled where they
perhaps got it from the Core Area Agreement before. The level of service that is provided by the
Mr. Martindale: I am certainly familiar with many of the
organizations that the minister read from that list. In fact, one of them,
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it was money
we put into the budget last year that we made all of the agencies aware
of. The
Mr. Martindale: I wonder if the minister could tell us which
line the $600,000 is contained in in the Estimates.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I guess if we go line by line we will come to
it but maybe with my staff here I could get them to identify it. I am told it
would be under 5.(b)(3) Maintenance of Children and External Agencies.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us how organizations
were notified in the community of this funding or if they were notified?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We notified the agencies that I just
referenced. As part of the work that
they do in working with other community groups they were aware that there was
some special project funding last year and we have continued the majority of
that this year. The director of the
It
was not an initiative that the department took to relate to those groups that I
referenced earlier but, certainly within the Child and Family Services
agencies, the three agencies that I mention, they were aware of that funding,
they were in discussions with the department, and then they had some choices to
make of how they wanted to access that.
In many cases, they entered into partnerships with existing groups in
the community to preserve the service or to enhance the service.
Mr. Martindale: Going back to the board of Winnipeg Child and
Family Services Agency, could the minister tell us if the minutes of board
meetings are public, and, if so, how one can get copies of their minutes?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is an issue that has not been raised
before, but I would be pleased to make inquiries on behalf of the member.
Mr. Martindale: Has there been management hired, new
management, in the Child and Family Services Agencies in the last year, and, if
so, are those senior management or some other level of management? Have there been any additions at the
management level of the
Mr. Gilleshammer: The board does have management staff in place
that bring information and requests to the board. There have, in all probability, been some
changes that the agency has moved in. Again, if the member could maybe be more
specific in his question we could find the answer for him.
Mr. Martindale: A more specific question would be, have there
been any new hirings in management in the four regions in
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that the agency has been working
with the service information system in putting that into place. There may be
staff hired in that area to bring that on line in the agency. The agency has been working on some quality‑assurance
issues and may have some additional staff or redirected some staff in that
area.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): The hour being twelve
o'clock, committee rise.
HIGHWAYS
AND TRANSPORTATION
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This section of the Committee of
Supply is dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Highways and
Transportation.
Would the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber.
Mr. Brian Pallister
(Portage la Prairie): Mr. Minister, my question to you is in regard
to a discussion we have had earlier concerning the proposed Assiniboine River
bridge on PR 240‑‑the newly located bridge which will provide
increased access to Portage la Prairie from the south and access to the
Southport Aerospace Centre for community people in Portage la Prairie.
I
am just concerned, first of all, Mr. Minister, with where that project is at at
this point in time.
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Chairperson, I thank the member for
that question. The member is probably
well aware of the time when the existing bridge, when we had a major
catastrophe there, a little over a year ago I guess, when a vehicle hit one of
our approaches out there and the whole section collapsed. Fortunately, nobody was killed.
I
want to take this opportunity to commend my bridge staff who were out on the
job and we actually got the approach rebuilt, but concerns were expressed at
that time that the existing bridge on 240 was such that there were concerns
about safety for the school buses that were taking children across there.
This was the most unique thing that ever
happened, where a certain standard was hit, and just goes to show the fragile
nature of things from time to time and, you know, the possible ensuing results.
But
to answer the member's question more specifically, the decision was made that,
in view of the overpass that we have built, a new alignment would be
established to service the
We
also are looking at doing a new bridge across the
It
is our intention that by the time we have the new bridge and new alignment
constructed, there is going to be‑‑it would turn over the existing
bridge and the road to the municipality. It will be a service road. The bridge will be taken out, and then we
will have the new bridge and new alignment leading into
There is also the question of the access into
the
To
the present member for Portage, I could say that his predecessor, the member
for Portage, Mr. Connery, he might have been a smaller guy but he wielded as
big a stick as the present existing member who is much, much taller. I have made a commitment to both gentlemen,
previously to the previous member and to the member now, that we are proceeding
on the basis as fast as we can.
Coming back again, let me just‑‑if
everybody will bear with me for 30 seconds, I would like to sort of give an
indication of exactly where we are at.
Thank you for your patience. The present status is that we have approval
for the grading as well as for the bridge.
The design on the bridge is 80 percent completed, and it would be our
hope that we have the environmental licence.
So it is just a matter of cleaning up some acquisition of the right‑of‑way. We are looking at expropriation on that, but
it would be our intention to take and do the approaches to the bridge, some
grading jobs starting later on this fall probably. The bridge is one of the things that stands
to be prioritized for construction later on this year.
So
basically, we are virtually completely ready with it, with the exception of a
little bit of property, and with ongoing encouragement from the member in the
community, which I know is there. I feel
that by fall we could have the approaches moved on, as well as finalizing
everything else in terms of completing the grading as well as the bridge.
Mr. Pallister: Madam Chairperson, as the minister is aware,
I am under, of course, great pressure to see this bridge proceed this year, not
just solely from the former member, but, of course, including the former
member.
There are many people in the community who are
very concerned that this bridge go ahead for the safety reasons that the
minister has already outlined, but also from the overall developmental
standpoint of the community and the benefit to the whole community and region.
My
next question for the minister is in terms of the procuring of the land
necessary for the right‑of‑way.
Am I correct in assuming that if the land is not arranged very soon, the
construction of the foundation or the approaches to the bridge would delay the
project a further year? Is that correct,
and if possible can I have assurances from the minister that will not be the
case, that there will not be a delay in this project?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, in spite of the difficulty
that we are having with land acquisition, we still feel we are on target to
proceed as I outlined earlier. I want to
make that commitment that in spite of the fact that if we have to move, that we
cannot come to an agreement with the landowners involved, we will proceed with
expropriation which would still allow us to take and do exactly as the program
has outlined.
I
just want to again repeat this, as I have done a few times I think, that if we
move with expropriation, that the landowner should not necessarily have undue
concern, because what expropriation basically does‑‑I have to go
through a process of getting approval from my colleagues in cabinet for
expropriation and once we have that, that gives us the right to enter. That does not take away the right of the
individual to proceed further with trying to negotiate the financial
arrangement.
* (2010)
I
want to again repeat that before anybody runs to a lawyer immediately to try
and see whether they can take court action against the process under
expropriation, I advise that members advise the people that they represent
where this takes place that they should first use the Land Value Appraisal
Commission. Make an application there,
which gives them a chance to appear and plea their case. Invariably, any decision that is made to the
Land Value Appraisal Commission would be then binding on government, but not
necessarily on the landowner.
At
that stage of the game, the landowner still has the right to go to court and
challenge the decision in court. So I
advise all my colleagues that get exposed to this to use the Land Value
Appraisal Commission as a first step, because I think in many cases it is a
government‑appointed board of people from all walks of life who use
common sense in making a decision. This
is only after our acquisition people have failed to reach an agreement, and we
have proceeded with expropriation.
So
we are on track in terms of making sure at the present time that even if we
cannot reach an agreement with the landowners involved we would then move with
expropriation and should still meet the target dates.
Madam Chairperson, I fully realize the
commitments that I have made in the area, saying that we would move this thing
forward as fast as possible, and I will do everything within reason and within
the possibility of my jurisdiction to proceed and meet the targets that we have
set.
Mr. Pallister: I thank the minister for his reply and again
just urge the department to proceed as rapidly as possible in this important
project for my constituency.
My
second area of concern relates to a matter which the minister and I discussed
previously regarding Provincial Road 305, and concerns a couple of things
related to 305. First of all, in terms
of the road restrictions placed on 305 in the spring of each year, it has been
brought to my attention by constituents‑‑and I believe the minister
has been corresponded with from various rural municipalities as well in regard
to 305‑‑that the road restrictions placed on that particular road
are indeed restrictive as far as the ability of local farm operators to access
their markets. Particularly those
hauling potatoes from the south side of the
I
am just wondering in terms of that. I
know the minister has received copies from rural municipalities, Portage la
Prairie, Grey, and others as well, asking that that particular road be upgraded
with bituminous asphalt to allow for weight restrictions no lower than the 60 k
to be placed on it, and I am just wondering where that sits with the department
at this time.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the member has raised this
with myself and my staff on a few occasions.
Just to make sure that we are talking about the same issue, it is my
understanding that on the south side of the bridge on 305 we have a short
distance that, by and large, is maybe substandard in terms of the quality of
road, and because of that we restrict that.
I raised this with staff to see whether on that short portion‑‑in
fact, it is a very short distance really‑‑if there was some way we
could address that.
Certainly for this year the restrictions are
in place already, but I want to give the member an undertaking that we will
take a look to see whether we can address that short portion which I believe is
the area of concern that has been coming forward. Once we have, during the course of the summer,
I will reply back to the member to outline the course of action that we plan to
take with that specific area.
It
again relates to the fact that sometimes people feel that by putting on
restrictions, we are doing this‑‑well, not vindictively or with
malice aforethought, but sometimes it almost appears that way. But we put restrictions on with very careful
consideration, realizing the economic hardship it creates for certain farm
operators or industries. So wherever
possible we try and see whether we can alleviate that situation. So again in this case here, because it is my
understanding and I need further verification in spite of the fact that the
member raised it earlier, I think it is only a short portion that we basically
are concerned about.
I
will confirm that further to the member as I get the final report coming
forward in terms of whether we are just addressing the short portion south of
the bridge, whether that would take and maybe raise the level of restriction
that we have to 60 kg, knowing that there are some pretty big operators out
there who are dependent on this road. So
I will give a further report on that once we have the final information coming
forward as to what is required to raise the standard of the restriction that we
have on that road.
Mr. Pallister: I thank the minister for that, and I again
would emphasize that the degree of damage done by these heavy trucks to the
rural municipality's roads and surrounding areas I think is certainly an
offsetting factor that we need to take into account here. The excess distance that we do force the
local professional agricultural managers to travel in their trips to the
surrounding communities is also a key factor in this one. So I thank the minister.
The
final concern that I had relates to
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let me first of all go
back to the concerns that the member expressed about where we restrict roads
that ultimately many of our farmers and industry users, when we restrict the
road, take and move onto the municipal roads, creating no problems for the
municipality. Invariably, that is the
reality of life at the present time as we are struggling to try and bring our
roads to a standard where we do not have to restrict them. I would expect that will continue on, and
municipalities invariably always bring this to my attention saying that when we
restrict the traffic turns onto the gravel roads‑‑and many of those
roads are even less standard than ours‑‑we invariably create a lot
of damage on it.
In
reference to
This portion of the PTH 1A is presently a four‑lane
undivided section that is adjacent to the new downtown section of
So
we have the approval to proceed with the survey design, and functional study,
we have not completed that. I want to
assure the member that especially when we are working urban sections of this
nature that extensive consultation takes place with the local authority, being
the City of
* (2020)
It
is not something that my staff just take and develop a plan and try and oppose
it. We do a lot of consultation with, in
this case the City of
So
we are in the stage of doing it. We have
not made too much progress, but this will be the first stage. After that, we would be prepared to start
looking at doing the capital project, which, incidentally, I do not have a
figure on, but usually these urban sections are a pretty substantial cost, but
I am hoping that we can maybe address that in the near future. Once we have the design done, know what we
want and that the City of
Mr. Pallister: Can the minister give me an idea of where
this design stage is at currently? Is
design work in process or are we waiting for design work to begin? Has any consultation with the City of
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, in this particular case,
we sort of develop a functional design and once we have that, then we go out
to, in this case, the City of
All
I can tell the member right now is that the functional design is not quite
completed. I have had representation
made to me by yourself, the MLA for
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I
have a letter from a Mrs. Vera Demkiw who is trying to build a seniors'
independent living residence for seniors on her property, and she says a
feasibility study has been done to support this project. However, she says, the project was stopped in
its tracks when the Department of Highways advised the Municipal Planning
Branch that if she made a private road off of Provincial Trunk Highway No. 5
that her road would be closed.
So
this woman has been trying to get a business started. She tells me further on, the Minister of
Highways had a meeting on August 22 and he advised the reeve of the council to
pass a by‑law, to present to the R.M. of Calder in
She
has made no headway with it. She wants
to proceed with her business, but she is having difficulty in getting access
off her property onto Provincial Trunk Highway No. 5. This has been ongoing since last year, last
summer.
I
want to ask the minister whether he recalls having the meeting, and is there
any way that we can help this woman who is prepared to start up a
business? As she indicates, it is an
important business because it is setting up independent living for single
people, people without children, people who do not have the supports. She is prepared to put the supports in place.
When I spoke to her, her proposal seemed to be
very valid, but she has run into a stumbling block with the Department of
Highways and the Department of Rural Development in getting access to her
property.
So
I want to ask the minister whether he has been able to take any steps on this
and what he advises Mrs. Demkiw to do in order that she might be able to
proceed with this development?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, yes, to the member for
It
is a very unique situation, where there are some individual landowners that by
and large show some concern and do not want to give up their property. Well, they are prepared, I guess, at a price
that seems exorbitant. So there has been
ongoing dialogue, and even though we have not made any progress, I made certain
suggestions at that time when I met with Mrs. Demkiw, I think is her name.
I
know that my assistant already from time to time has had nightmares because I
think‑‑I commend Mrs. Demkiw for her ambition and the plan that she
has. It is just a matter of
circumstances that creates the problems in terms of how we access onto
Provincial Trunk Highway No 5.
If
the member ever looks on the map, she will see a problem, that little zig where
it goes into
We
also have, if I can recall correctly, some problems in terms of safety at the
bridge, you know, where at the present time, there is convoluted trail‑‑I
should not call it convoluted, but a very complex trail that leads up to her
property that at a time when you have heavy rains or snow conditions, the
grading is such that it is virtually impossible to get to the site that she
has.
I
must say that knowing the problem, it is a very unique site that she has which
basically is up there overlooking‑‑you know it is a beautiful place
for possibly seniors or for some development to take place. The difficulty we have is as we come down to
the ravine and how we get onto No. 5.
The one option that has been discussed by staff from time to time is,
across this particular property where, I believe, there are two gentlemen
involved that own that property who have no intentions of selling it. Now, because it is a private access, we
cannot expropriate, and we had asked the
If
it was my highway that was involved at that stage of the game, then I could
proceed with expropriation and deal with it. At the present time, I am not
quite sure whether the municipality has the authority to take and do
expropriation. In this particular case,
it is the municipality in
That is why I suggested that the resolution be
passed by the local council to submit to the
I
am not taking away the fact that the proposal is a commendable proposal. It is just a matter of how, under technical
circumstances, we sometimes get caught where it seems that nothing moves. We have made every effort to look at options
to see whether we can help with it. The
most logical option is still to proceed straight west from our property into
You
know, the issue is not dead. It has not
made any progress. We will continue to
see whether this summer we can undo the logjam that is there. I know the frustration that is there. Certainly the lady has expressed her
frustration to me. At first blush when you hear some of this information, you
say well, okay, there is a problem; let us fix it. In this particular case, it is one of those
cases where it is very, very hard to fix it.
* (2030)
We
will continue to keep looking at options and working with her and seeing
whether something can be done. That is
the best I can do at the present time.
Ms. Wowchuk: I guess the minister says there is the
option. She says that she has the option
of purchasing some land in
We
certainly have a need in this province to have facilities where seniors can be
looked after, particularly when it is a very unique kind of situation where seniors
could be housed and have independent living in a rural environment which many
people want.
I
am pleased to hear that the minister's staff is working on it. I would hope that they would continue to work
on it until they come up to some solution with it. I believe that Mrs. Demkiw is becoming very
frustrated, and I know that she has contacted many people on this. I hope the minister can find some solution to
it in the near future.
I
want to go back to another area that I touched on earlier this afternoon, and
that again is in the Ethelbert area where we talked about the extension of 269,
and I believe the minister said that there were plans in place to extend that
road up to No. 10 Highway, but there was need for all groups to work together
on it.
When I met with council, they told me that the
environmental assessment had been done already, and that there also was a
design on what had to be done as far as a bridge. The recommendation was that we did not need a
bridge there, that it could be handled with pipes. I just want to verify that information. Has an environmental assessment been done on
extending 269 to the No. 10 Highway?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, indications are, I have to
reconfirm, that it has not taken place.
However, because we are scrambling with a lot of information here, I
will just have staff double check, and possibly I can confirm exactly the
status of it, not today but at a later time, in terms of where we are at with
the thing, so that by way of a memo to the member I can maybe clarify what the
status is. As I say, we have many
projects that we are looking at. We are
scrambling to get as much information as we can. My information tells me, no, we do not have
the environmental thing, but I will review that and give an update.
Ms. Wowchuk: I thank the minister for that. I know it is hard to keep track of all these
questions and get accurate information, but if you could provide me with that,
I would appreciate it.
Just along that line, I will then add a couple
of more things to the list. I do not
expect the minister will have the answers here as well, but if he could let us
know‑‑it is Highway 267 which is in the Ethelbert area as
well. There was a request to do
improvements to that road. However, the
municipal council is being told that the improvements to that road cannot be
made until they do the proper drainage work.
Their concern is that the drainage work is complete, but yet they cannot
get anywhere with the department staff in Dauphin as to getting this road
completed. That is 267, the Sifton road
to Venlaw.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I know the area the member
is talking about. In this case as well,
I will have to review it with staff and see exactly what the problems are. Just to verify it with myself, it would be
from No. 10 going west to No. 274. Let us see what I have for information here.
It
is a distance of 8.9 kilometres, which is basically slated for grade and gravel
somewhere along the line. The right‑of‑way
acquisition which was approved in 1982 has been completed. Environmental
screening will be required. Apparently,
that is starting very soon. I think the
utilities‑‑the Hydro line has been moved. The existing grade is low and narrow in
spots, also rough and difficult to maintain, subject to numerous complaints,
located within the area where the R.M. of Ethelbert has experienced land
drainage problems. Preliminary results
of an area drainage study undertaken by Water Resources at the R.M.'s request
are also now available.
I am
told by staff here, my briefing:
However, grading should not proceed until drainage issues have been
resolved and appealed.
So
we have it basically ready for grade and gravel. Once we have the issue with drainage
resolved, it would be ready for consideration, I would think possibly as one of
the projects next year.
Ms. Wowchuk: Just one clarification on that, can the
minister advise‑‑council is saying the drainage work is done. The paper that the minister is reading from
is saying that the drainage is not complete.
Who would then be the person to contact?
Is it the Dauphin office that has to deal with that, or how do we get
through this one, because they tell me their drainage work is done?
Mr. Driedger: My understanding, Madam Chairperson, is that
Water Resources has made some recommendations, but there is a certain amount of
unhappiness with those recommendations.
From our perspective, before we would be prepared to put it forward for
the final grade and gravel, we would want to confirm with Water Resources and
the municipality that everybody is sort of satisfied. Apparently that is not the case at the
present time, because it is not going to be a project that we would bring
forward at this time in spite of most of it being ready to go aside from some
drainage concerns. I will undertake to
have staff work further with Water Resources to get an update as to whether
there are any further complications.
Having resolved those, then it would be one of the many projects that we
would be looking at bringing forward possibly next year.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Madam Chairperson, I have a question for the
minister. I would just like to ask the
minister, on Route 90, between Inkster Blvd. and the Perimeter Highway, with
the addition of the overpass there a couple of years ago on the Perimeter
Highway, it certainly saved a lot of problems and it is a great asset. But Route 90, from
Over the years though there have been a lot of
fatalities on this route. There are only
about I think three or four miles or whatever it is. Can the minister maybe tell us what are the
plans there? I realize this is in the
city of
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the member, I believe, is
talking about
* (2040)
Highway 7 probably exemplifies what has
happened where the province has spent many, many millions of dollars doing the
twinning of Highway 7 with a big overpass at the Perimeter. Then once we get into the city portion of it,
there is I think two miles that is involved on
I
have raised this with the city on numerous occasions, and I want to compliment
my colleague the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), who has basically been
negotiating with the city on my behalf and his behalf and the province's
behalf, has recommended that Brookside Blvd. be one of the projects that be
undertaken by the city in terms of completing the twinning up to the inner
city.
That
is the typical example, I guess, that I use very often, saying we spend the
money to bring a twinned highway in for safety reasons, and once we get to the
city portion of it, then we are down to, I should not call it a cow path, two
very marginal lanes very often.
I
repeat again, on that highway, we have many of our major trucking industries
located along there, and it is a major concern for safety reasons. So we dialogue, and I think we are comfortable
that activity will take place together with the city, whether on a cost‑sharing
basis or not. This is something that the
Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), who is a very good negotiator with the
city, will ultimately deal with.
Certainly the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer)
has raised this from the time that we had the official opening of the by‑pass
going over the Perimeter, the concern on the
Mr. Helwer: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Another question I have is on Highway
220. We have about a mile and a half or
about a mile or so from Highway 67 into Oak Hammock. As you know, we just opened the Oak Hammock
Marsh Interpretive Centre there this past weekend. There were thousands of people there this
past weekend and a lot of traffic on Highway 67 and 220 going into Oak Hammock.
We
have some gravel there yet and one thing and another. With the number of buses
and school buses and the traffic now going into the interpretive centre‑‑it
certainly is a major tourist attraction there now, Oak Hammock‑‑I
wonder if the minister can tell me what he has in mind for Highways 67 and
220. Actually Highway 67 probably
between Highways 7 and 8 is the main route into Oak Hammock and then on Highway
220 into Oak Hammock.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, that short portion from
Highway 67 going on 220 into Oak Hammock is a distance of four kilometres. We had approval in 1991 for acquisition of right‑of‑way,
and we are proceeding on that basis.
Once we have the right‑of‑way, we have it actually slated,
ready for consideration in this year's approval basis this spring for grade and
gravel for the four kilometres.
Ironically, I want to say to the member that a
few members for the opposition were screaming and yelling and saying that the
government was putting all kinds of money into the project as part of the Oak
Hammock development and accusing my department, as well as the Department of
Natural Resources, for, you know, riding roughshod over the environmentalists'
concerns and spending all kinds of money in there.
I
just want to clarify and put on the record the fact that the proposal of what
we have here was based not on the present Oak Hammock development with Ducks
Unlimited. This was done prior to that
when there was an interpretive centre there.
Any decision that was made that we have here at the present time was
done aside from and above and beyond the fact that we have the Ducks Unlimited
development that has taken place.
I
fully appreciate the comments that the member made in the nonpolitical
statement in the House today that there were virtually 10,000 people there on
the weekend at the opening; that tremendous pressure is going to come down in
terms of moving forward with that four kilometres. I want to ensure the member that, if at all
possible, I will have that brought forward in the approval process within the
next couple of weeks when I bring forward the capital program.
Mr. Helwer: I appreciate that answer. I also have another concern on Highway No. 8,
the portion north of Highway 17. It has
not been widened yet. There are no
shoulders. Highway 8 is a very important
highway. It includes this portion from
Highway 17 north up to PR 229. There is
a bad curve in there, and last winter there were some bad accidents around that
curve. Anytime in the winter there is a
very dangerous portion of Highway 8 there around the curve because of drifting
snow and blowing snow and one thing and another. [interjection] I am
serious. I really want these questions
answered. We have legitimate questions
for the minister here, and we want them answered.
Number 8 is a very important route because it
not only goes to the tourist areas of Lake Winnipeg, such as
There is a very dangerous portion there from
north of Highway 17 and up to Highway 229.
What are your plans for that section?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, as the member is aware and
he rightfully states, No. 8 is a very heavily used highway. We have been working on it in stages. Even before my time, certain portions of it
were shoulder widened and paved. We have
been continuing to do that. We just
finished doing a grading job, shoulder widening again and some structures on
Highway 8. We are proceeding in stages.
Staff indicates to me that we are looking at
doing some adjustment on that portion of the curves on No. 8‑‑
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Spend, spend, spend.
Mr. Driedger: Hey, I like this. The member for Thompson is yelling spend,
spend. In the meantime, in the House he
sits here day after day and has brought forward petitions on 391 saying spend,
spend, spend. Madam Chairperson, do you
know what I did? I spent and spent and spent on 391, and he still brings
forward 391 all the time. I just wanted
to raise that point.
The
importance of our PTH system is illustrated by the fact that we try and‑‑you
have to look at it almost like an octopus with the city being in the centre and
the arteries going all which way. We try
and do that. That is what is happening
with No. 8.
As
we have with many of our major PTHs around this city‑‑the question
was raised before by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) on Highway 9, which is
another one that is slated for upgrading. So we try and do that in stages based
on the availability of money and as we make progress with these things.
To
the member for Gimli, I want to compliment him on his patience, because the
adjustments that we made on No. 8 at Gimli, it was a very trying time between
the Department of Natural Resources, where we were talking about the Gimli
diversion, if I can call it that, until we finally had agreement between the
Department of Natural Resources and ourselves and the people involved. I would hope that project, which has been
long in the mix, is going to be finally completed this year.
I
just want to assure the member that there will be ongoing work undertaken on
Highway 8 as we move north with it, and I feel justified in doing that.
Mr. Helwer: Mr. Minister, I appreciate your comments on
Highway 8. Yes, it is true the
contractor will be completing the Gimli access and the Gimli flood protection
drain which has taken up part of Highway 7 there, and we hope that the weather
co‑operates with the contractor this year and that hopefully that can be
completed.
Just a question on Highway 9 though, the part
from I believe it is 519 north up to Gimli, from the Sandy Hook corner north
there right up to Gimli, and it takes into consideration all of 9‑‑9
is kind of the Main Street of Gimli there‑‑runs right along the
railway track and right out to Distillery Road.
* (2050)
That is an important road, and we realize
there are a number of cottagers that could be affected along there, but we feel
it is important that this be widened with the same base that has been done from
south from 519 into
Now
we have the same thing on the next section from 519 north,
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, that portion that the
member is referring to on No. 9 from 519 north, south of the Gimli access,
survey and design has been completed and a location plan has been prepared
actually a number of years ago.
Environmental screening has started. There have been some changes requested. The district is making changes, and then the
planning board will decide to proceed with the licence application or not.
There have been concerns from the cottage
owners, and that is why the original plan was revised from time to time
requiring less right‑of‑way.
An open house is planned to be held this spring at which time cottage
owners can view the final new location plan.
If
the new plan meets with their approval, then the next step is to apply for the
environmental clearance. Once the new
location plan is approved, some right‑of‑way will have to be
acquired, and after that, we are ready to do the grade widening and surfacing.
In
fact that little portion, that strip there, we are looking at roughly just for
grading shoulders is approximately $1.9 million. So we basically will have the hearings with the
public this spring, with the cottage owners, and we hope that we should have
addressed their concerns and be able to proceed from there.
Mr. Helwer: Mr. Minister, I am certainly pleased that the
department is meeting with the cottagers and going to hold an open house there
this summer to explain what is going to be done. I think hopefully this will answer a lot of
the questions that have been asked and will satisfy a number of those
cottagers.
Also the portion right through the town of
Gimli there, there is about actually a mile from the south access right through
the town and it takes in‑‑goes right out to Distillery Road‑‑we
would like to see that done right out to Distillery Road because there is a lot
of traffic through the town, and it is narrow there, very dangerous. It certainly would enhance the looks of the
town of
I
know in other towns, in some areas, you have put what you call a curb‑and‑gutter
system in. I think, with the new Gimli
protection drain, that should take some pressure off the flooding there. Could we use a curb‑and‑gutter
system there through the town, or what can we use there to improve the looks of
that Highway 9?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, we have split the project
on No. 9 into two projects: the one the
member just made reference to before from
I
want to tell the member that our co‑operation with the town of
I
do not know whether further consultation has to take place with the town.
[interjection] There will be some more consultation for the final plans before
we move on that next step, but that is in the making right now.
Mr. Helwer: Mr. Minister, I appreciate that. I am glad to hear that the department will be
consulting with the town there and explaining to them exactly what is being
done.
I
also want to commend you and congratulate your department on the job you did on
I
just have one further question here, and that is on Highway 415 west of No. 7
Highway. It is just on the south side of
the
Mr.
Minister, I would hope that maybe you could find it possible to put either some
asphalt surface treatment on there, AST on there, or possibly half a mile or a
mile of pavement up to the track or just north‑‑or just west of the
track to assist this industry because this industry is certainly an added
feature for the community. It provides a
lot of employment there, and it is just a great thing. So I hope that the Department of Highways,
your department, can maybe do something to help them on that road, on 415.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the member is aware, I am
sure, that we did upgrading of that road just a little while ago. We had some drainage problems there, I think,
for a period of time, and I believe we got those resolved.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in
the Chair)
Basically 415 west of Teulon is in a position
where we could start considering the base and AST. I am looking forward to getting further
detailed information from the member when he has time to drop it off, to the
industry that is taking place and to see whether the type of industry is such
that it requires, aside from just the requirement of base and AST, whether
heavy loading is involved or stuff of that nature which could all have a
bearing on that.
I
invite the member to come and dialogue with myself to bring me up to date as to
the kind of industry that is there. Certainly, we will try and be as
accommodating as possible in terms of trying to have good and proper road
access there. The road has been
upgraded, and I am prepared to, further down the line, give consideration for
the paving or base and AST of that road.
* (2100)
Mr. Helwer: Just one further question, and then I will
pass the questioning over to someone else.
On
PR 323 which is a road going through Argyle from Highway 7 to No. 6, this is a
fairly busy road and it is the only link across between Highways 6 and 7 north
of Stonewall there really. That is important there. It is through the town of
That road is important. I know that last year you were supposed to
have a survey or a design on that. I
wonder how that has advanced, and where is that in the new program now?
Mr. Driedger: Because the member has brought it to our
attention, we have done the survey from No. 7 to 322 which is the one going
north. The survey has been completed but
the design has not started. The area
from 322 to No. 6 has not been targeted or slated yet, so we have done the
first stage in terms of starting from the east going west. We will continue on that basis and
ultimataely do the portion‑‑the survey and design has to be done
from 322 to No. 6. We have done the
first stage of that and hope to move further with that.
Mr. Helwer: Just one further question, Mr. Minister, and
this is on the weight restrictions that are applied to our highways during the
spring season. Throughout the year
actually we have a maximum weight. I
think rather than the 45 and 60 kilograms per square inch of tire that we use
or per square centimetre of tire we use, we should change that and go to so
many kilograms per axle. At the present
time if you have an 11 by 22 tire, you are allowed an increase, eight to carry
over, say, at 1,000 by 20. Yet basically they are the same except the 11 by 22s
are the new tubeless tire rating.
I
think, Mr. Minister, there should be some changes in that regard, in the
restrictions. Rather than the
complicated procedure of the 45 or 60 kilometres per square centimetre, I would
like to see us go on a straight weight per axle. Then, of course, you lower the weight per
axle on a restricted road.
But
this would be simpler for farmers and for people, small truckers who are not as
familiar with the system as the large truckers.
I think it will actually be much easier to enforce also, and simpler to
enhance. I think that there must be
easier ways of doing that, and I would like to see some changes in that regard.
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I will take the
recommendation that the member has made and forward it to my staff and see if
that is something that could be given consideration and would be
applicable. So I thank him for those
comments.
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I would like to thank you first of all very much
last year for the attention you gave in listening to the concerns of
constituents of mine who were experiencing some difficulty with the Perimeter
overpass at Highway No. 1, the Portage Avenue Perimeter overpass.
I
am just wondering if you might be able to indicate in terms of a time
line. We have the trucks being diverted
right now on a detour around that bridge over
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, maybe I could just
give a little bit of background as to what the status is of the bridge on the
Perimeter over
In
fact, to the point where they affect some of the properties in the adjacent
area by using some of the city roads, some of the private properties. We are talking of the Wright [phonetic]
property at the racetrack. I am talking
of some of the residential roads actually in the city area, because of the
restriction.
I
am very pleased to say that under the Strategic Highway Improvement Program
that we signed with the federal government‑‑the $70 million that is
shared 35‑35 with the province‑‑that this is one of the
projects that was identified by the federal government as one of their
priorities.
As
a result of that we are very pleased that we can proceed on that basis. The first step will be that we will take and
set up by‑passes on each side of the existing bridge right now with
signalizations being set up to cross
We
will take and have the by‑pass open by the summer, by mid‑August. We anticipate that we should have it
constructed by mid‑August. I am
talking about the by‑pass and signalization that is involved, and we
should have that open by the end of August.
Then we would proceed with the tearing down of the existing structure
that is there and then replacing it. So
we have to do that in terms of the time frame from the time that we basically
have the by‑pass completed at the end of August. My staff indicates that by the 1st of July of
next year we should have that structure replaced. So just to give the member an indication.
I
realize full well the discomfort that it has created for some of her residents
out there. We have been trying to comply
by addressing some of the interim measures.
We are doing an interim asphalt layover on the portion that is very
rough, which creates some noise problems for the people. As well, I think we are doing some tree
planting as was suggested by some of the people and the member. So we are trying to address the concerns that
have been brought forward, and the time frame that I outlined is basically what
we are looking at in terms of having that bridge replaced.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I would certainly
like to thank the minister and his staff for the attention they are giving to
this issue. It is an inconvenience and I
realize it has to be because you cannot do major repairs of that nature without
having to experience some inconvenience while they are being done. I appreciate the indication as to the time
line and I will pass it on to my constituents for their information.
I
particularly appreciate the indication that that little portion of the bridge
immediately north of the bridge, where it creates the noise problem, is being
looked at. I thank you for that, as well
as for the tree plantings.
Just one other question, and I do not know if you
are able to give me an answer to this question at the time. The little service road that runs behind the
trailer court that seems to be a perennial problem in terms of the dust and
speeding traffic through there, do you have any indication as to the kinds of
measures that might be put in place this summer while that road is in use in
order to (a) keep down dust, and (b) try to control the speed of traffic
through there?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, without being able to
be too definitive, I believe that by the time we set up our by‑passes
that the truck traffic certainly should have been coming off there. It is my belief that once we have the
project, the bridge, completed that ultimately we will be able to close that
portion, just to basically bring some outside traffic along that street. The member has conscientiously brought this
forward time and time again on behalf of her constituents. If there is going to be a further problem
during the course of the summer, I think I have given her indication in the
past that we are prepared to address some of the problems in terms of dust
problems, et cetera.
* (2110)
Mrs. McIntosh: I am sorry, is the minister finished?
Mr. Driedger: I just wanted to add that ultimately we are
looking at closing that portion which allows access into that service road, if
we can call it that, around the trailer park. So we are going to look at it
very carefully. As this project develops
out there, if there are further problems, I welcome the minister to come
forward. As I have indicated in the
past, we will try and be as accommodating as possible with what can be done to
alleviate the concerns of our people out there.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Acting Chairperson, this will be my final
question/comment. I thank you very much
for your attention to this issue. I
realize that these things take time and you have major projects and not all the
money in the world as we would like to have.
The
one request I would make, as you come close to the time when you are deciding
action on that service road, I would be very grateful if at that time you
and/or your staff could meet again with the residents of the trailer park to
discuss that aspect of how that road's designated use would be altered, because
I have received indication that accessing off the Perimeter, that is the one
way they bring the mobile homes into the trailer park.
While they are concerned about through traffic
roaring up and down, they will also maybe need some kind of access to get those
mobile homes in. So if it is within your
wherewithal when you do approach that period in time, if a meeting could be
held with concerned residents of the trailer park, I would be very grateful as
their MLA to have that dialogue occur at that time.
Thank you very much in the meantime for
answering my repeated questions on this subject. I appreciate it.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I just want to
continue where I left off on Thursday.
Now I have had the opportunity to read through the minister's remarks. By the way, I did drive down Highway 6 today,
so if the minister wants any update on the condition of Highway 6, I am quite
able to provide it.
Actually, the general condition is good, but I
want to raise some serious concerns about a couple of stretches with regard to
safety. I have written to the minister
in regard to one stretch in particular, just outside
I
have talked to people in Wabowden and in Sasagiu Rapids who have expressed
concern about that stretch of highway for quite some time. In this particular case, there was a very
tragic combination of ice on the road and a rock outcropping in the ditch that
lead to two people from Norway House dying.
I
would like to ask the minister‑‑as I have said, I have written to
the minister in this regard‑‑if there are any plans to review this
particular stretch of highway and, hopefully, improve it in terms of safety.
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, it is always deep remorse
and regret we feel in the department when somebody gets killed on the highways
because there is always that possible feeling that maybe it had something to do
with the highway itself, that the quality of the road combined with driver
error ultimately has created some of these unfortunate mishaps. This is why safety is one of the big things
we take into consideration as we make improvements at intersections, roads,
period.
I
think the member is probably aware that our acting district engineer before we
went to regionalization out of Thompson, Herb Mahood, whom the member probably
knows well, who was stationed in Thompson, came up with an innovative program
of addressing the sides of the highway where he did improvements in terms of
removing brush and doing the slopes properly and burying as many stones as
possible. I felt very pleased when I was
out there and he showed me what he had done.
I am encouraged without major expense to continue that kind of a project
in terms of reducing the foliage and brush on the side and the rock
outcroppings that are there, so I am encouraging them to continue that project.
The
member makes specific reference to the Pisew Fall area, and in spite of some
individuals saying that the road conditions are not that bad on No. 6, I know
the shortcomings we have on there.
Invariably we have heavings, we have continual patching taking
place. We have not stated any major
upgrade of No. 6 at the present time, other than we have on Highway 39 from
Ponton going west. But on No. 6 it is
just a matter of continued maintenance and hopefully doing the improvement on
the shoulders as we have started from Thompson going southwest.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the difficulty with
that stretch of highway‑‑and there is another stretch just outside
of Wabowden, immediately south of Wabowden, that is often the site of vehicles
being in the ditch‑‑is the type of curve and the angle of the
curve, and the suggestion has been made for a number of years that the curve be
straightened out. As I indicated, the
combination of that plus a rock outcropping have very tragic circumstances.
I
would like to ask, not only specifically in that regard, but what the
procedures are in the case of accidents, both serious and fatal. Does the Department of Highways investigate
afterwards? Are recommendations made
where changes to the roads are warranted?
I
have, for example, written to the minister's department requesting information
on fatalities on northern roads and have not received that information
yet. I assume it will be
forthcoming. The reason I am asking for
that is because in many cases where there have been fatalities, one of the
concerns has often been the condition of the road, serious accidents as well. I
referenced those last week.
So
I would like to ask what the procedures are and in particular in this case, the
one around Pisew Falls, whether there was any investigation as to the
circumstances by the Department of Highways personnel, and whether there are
any recommendations either having come out of that or forthcoming in terms of
improving the road. Because as I said it
is not the surface that is the problem, it is the kind of curve and the rock
outcropping and there are other stretches on Highway 6 that are very similar.
I
talked to an individual, one of my constituents, Phil Down, who went into the
ditch just before Christmas, and he was the sixth car to go in the ditch in the
space of about two or three hours. Once
again that has been well known to people in Wabowden as being a rather
dangerous stretch in a relative sense, and while there may not have been any
fatalities in that particular curve recently, once again it has caused a number
of accidents. Both in regard to the specific and the general, is there a follow‑up
to ensure that there are actions put in place to deal with the safety concerns?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am told that when a
major accident occurs, invariably our staff people go out and do a sort of
investigation to see exactly what caused it.
Other than that, the only time there would be a full‑scale
investigation into an accident is where there is a coroner inquest taking place
where the RCMP, who then also make reports when there are fatalities involved
or accidents involved‑‑that would be the only time when you
actually get into the official category as to what created it or caused it.
Regarding the problems the member is raising
between Wabowden and Pisew Falls and some of the outcroppings and some of the
conditions of the road, invariably there is no way that we can assure,
depending on weather conditions, that the highway is safe all the time. One of the biggest problems that we have is
during storm conditions which in this lovely province of ours come at any given
time. Especially during the long winter
months, you have times where you have icy conditions, you have heavy snow
conditions.
Invariably we try and have our winter
maintenance program, such that if it is icy we go sand and put salt on the
roads. If it is snow conditions, we do
the plowing. It is an ongoing challenge
and race for our staff in terms of trying to provide safer conditions, but
generally the people that drive on Manitoba highways understand the role that
weather conditions play in terms of what our roads are like and the hazards
that go with it. That is why we
continually have awareness programs on TV, et cetera, in terms of what
condition the road is in so people can be aware of it.
* (2120)
The
majority of Manitobans have a pretty good feel and understanding, especially
rural ones that travel on these highways, that when you have adverse conditions
you are dressed accordingly and drive accordingly. I had occasion to travel in the States‑‑this
is quite a number of years ago‑‑when they had an ice storm and those
people just do not have an inkling of how to drive vehicles in those
conditions.
We
have that advantage. That still does not
take away from the fact that invariably there are going to be accidents. Not everybody is as conscientious as the
member for Thompson who has been driving up and down that road for a long, long
time under various conditions half asleep and, not saying that he has been
speeding, but I would expect that on the long, open stretches from Gypsumville
going north, that from time to time that could happen.
When I ask him how long it takes him to get
into town, I could not do it in that time.
But I do not want to leave any wrong impressions here. Obviously, the member is a good driver and
knows what I am talking about, so there is no way that I can give him the
assurance he would like that we will be able to have all our roads 100 percent
safe for the average driving public, because the drivers themselves have to
take a good portion of the responsibility.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I took a considerable
amount longer today. My car broke down
an hour outside of
The
point I want to make, though, goes far beyond that. I am talking about stretches of highway where
there have been significant numbers of accidents, not necessarily fatal but in
some cases fatal. I realize what the
minister is saying in terms of weather conditions. Boy, do I know that. When it is icy, when it is raining, you slow
down, but even given that, there are stretches in the highway that are more
dangerous than others.
What I am concerned about is the reporting
mechanism because, in this case, when you had the two fatalities, even if it
was a combination of human error and the road conditions, the question that
arises in my mind is not as to whether anybody was to blame or whether the
highway was necessarily unsafe in the sense that perhaps the minister is
thinking, but my point is, if we can make it safer for people, if we can
improve the curvature in the highway, because that is a significant factor, it
can make a difference.
I
have raised my concerns about Highway 391, but as the minister knows there,
some of the progress that has been taking place on Highway 391 is the fact that
some of the blind hills have been taken out, the blind curves. Those are clearly major safety factors. I want to stress again‑‑and I
have written to the minister, and I will write to the minister again on the
particular circumstance there. I invite
the minister to meet with northern communities, because I can take him into a
number of communities: Wabowden, I
mentioned, where he will get direct feedback on a couple of stretches of
highway; in Nelson House, on the access road and also on 391; same thing in
terms of the people in
The
bottom line is, people know the stretches of highway that are more dangerous,
where there have been the accidents. You
know, it is perhaps unfortunate, Mr. Acting Chairperson, we do not follow the
tradition that some European countries do.
In some European countries, when someone dies in an automobile accident,
the relatives of the individual put up a memorial alongside the road, and
believe you me, when you drive around a corner and there are six or seven
memorials, you know it is dangerous.
I
would suggest that it might have a similar impact in terms of northern
Manitoba, not just for those driving, but also those making decisions because
there are stretches of highway that are more dangerous than others. I would once again urge the minister to look
at that dimension. I am hoping the
information I have requested from the department will be of use. Once again, it is not a political issue. I am not looking to blame anyone. I know the work the Department of Highways
does. The question is whether we can
make it better.
I
just want to finish off, by the way, as well because I raised a number of
concerns on Thursday. But one other
highway in northern Manitoba that while it is not in my constituency, it is one
that I have been on a number of times‑‑in fact, I got stuck on it
the first time I ever went on it‑‑is Highway 373. I just want to note, because I noticed the
minister had referenced in his comments in response to my comments on Thursday
about Highway 373, that road is increasingly in poor condition. I have been in at
There is the ongoing question of bridge access
as well. I would just like to ask
because the minister did reference this, and I know the member for The Pas (Mr.
Lathlin) has been very concerned about the condition of the highway. I think he was suggesting earlier that
perhaps we in the North should take some blame.
Perhaps we should be asking you to get it twinned‑‑start
big, start ambitious. It seems to work
in other areas of the province.
I
will ask the minister. When is he going
to put in a twin highway there with a nice white shoulder, following from the
member for Gimli? We can put in a by‑pass
as well and a flyover, whatever else. I
seem to be hearing these phrases kicked around.
But
in all seriousness, I think most people in Cross Lake and Norway House,
communities of over 2,000‑‑I mean you are looking at a combined
population of‑‑what?‑‑over 5,000.
An Honourable Member: Yes, we need the noise barriers.
Mr. Ashton: The noise barriers, too. You are looking at communities of over
5,000. I do not think you will find
anywhere else in the province where you have communities of that size in that
close proximity to a paved all‑weather road where you do not have far
better highways, in fact, paved highways.
I challenge the minister to find any other communities outside of the
North where you have communities of that size that do not have paved highways
and do not have bridge access.
I
would like to ask the minister what plans, if any, that the department has to
improve the condition of Highway 373, including the bridge access question as
well?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, first of all, the
member asked when we would be twinning 373 and some of the highways up
north. I reply, in due course;
ultimately, I assume it will happen. The
member can take whatever comfort he wants out of that.
Specifically on 373, in fact, I just met last
week, Thursday or Friday, with Chief Alan Ross and representatives from the
Norway House area in terms of bringing forward the concerns from some of their
people who are involved in the timber industry and the concern they have
driving their big units down the road.
It
is always a jockeying between do I allow a 130,000 tonne load of timber to
drive down a road like 373, which really is not built for it, and that kind of
a truck, under dust conditions and with the kind of load it has on, creates
havoc on the road. At the same time, I
do not want to take and deter the individual from making a living because he is
employing 14 people, so it is always a problem in that regard.
I
want to say we have undertaken constant activity on 373, whether it is doing
the portion in Norway House, building the
* (2130)
We
have a contract that will be let very shortly in terms of the Jenpeg area where
the road along the dike is a safety hazard because of the conditions that it is
at. We are doing a new alignment there
and that project is taking place. So it
is certainly not that we are ignoring 373.
The
member must realize the long distances that are involved here and costly
projects. You know, even with the best
intentions, it costs a lot of money, but we certainly have undertaken, in my
time at least, ongoing activities on 373 to improve the situation and will
continue to do so. That is the
commitment I have made when I meet with the communities. I have no hesitation to go and meet these
communities.
It
was my intention to do a tour of the area last year. It was circumvented for whatever reasons and
I am looking at going up north this year and looking first‑hand‑‑very
similar to the member for St. James. I
think his name was‑‑what was his name? The guy with the white Chrysler,
a fellow by the name of Mandrake who took all summer one time and toured every
road, I guess, for two or three months and then spent 28 hours in Estimates
questioning me on every road.
I
just want to say that I meet ongoingingly with communities from the North in
trying to address their concerns as best I can within reason and within
fairness. That is an undertaking that I
continue to put on the record.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(St. Norbert): I would like to get the minister on record on
a couple of issues. On one of the
issues, as you are aware within St. Norbert we have got what is going to be the
only landfill for the city of Winnipeg by the end of this year, and at the
corner of Waverley and the Perimeter we have now got a set of lights‑‑thanks
to this minister, by the way‑‑a couple of years ago. But the traffic is going to be more than
quadrupling over the next six months to a year, and I am wondering how we are
coming with the plans on the overpass at Waverley and the Perimeter.
I
understand there is going to be some open houses in my constituency at the end
of the month, and I was wondering if I could get the exact dates and possibly
how the plans are moving ahead.
Mr. Driedger: The member is making reference to the
They have proposed to undertake a million
dollars worth of road improvements from south of the Perimeter into the Brady
landfill site. Staff became aware of it
and started talking with the City of
Discussions started taking place with the City
of Winnipeg in terms of a proposed overpass to accommodate the anticipated
additional traffic that will be generated once the‑‑what is the
name of the other landfill site?‑‑it does not matter. Mr. Acting Chairperson, based on the
anticipated closing of the other landfill site a tremendous amount of traffic
basically that would be generated‑‑and I am talking truck traffic
going across the Perimeter. It is for
that reason where we initially moved forward with the signalization of that
intersection.
Subsequent to that, based on the fact that
they were going to spend some money on improvements there, we started
discussions in terms of looking at having an overpass. At the present time we have submitted a
proposal to the city in terms of cost‑sharing because the Perimeter, by
and large, is our responsibility, but instead of them having a million dollars
of what we consider maybe throw‑away money, that we jointly with them
develop an overpass to accommodate the kind of traffic that we anticipate will
be generated for the Brady landfill site.
Correspondence
has taken place back and forth. It is my
understanding that the plans are in place, and it is a matter of just getting
the finalization in terms of the financial arrangements from the city. We have written to them and actually‑‑you
know, I do not want to get into a match with the city, but we have certainly
been moving our proposals forward to them as fast as we can.
They have been relatively slow in responding
in some cases. In fact, Mr. Acting Chairperson, I was not going to put it this
way, but they have not responded to our last offer for a considerable amount of
time, and we have been sort of waiting for that.
We
had anticipated‑‑they set up some pretty tight guidelines or time
frames for us initially, and then as we work this thing forward, it is the city
basically that has been dragging its feet on this proposal, but we are still
game to go. Once we have finalized the
plans‑‑well, not the plans, the arrangements. The plans are finalized.
To
further clarify that, once we have the financial arrangements completed with
them, then we would make the application for the environmental impact, so we
are looking at least a year down the road before actually the work can be
undertaken, when actually they had in their initial proposal suggested that we
should have the project done by '95, '94, or something like that. We will be lucky to get started by then, but
I want to assure you it was not our department that basically was dragging its
feet on this thing. It was the City of
Mr. Laurendeau: I will take that information forward and go
to my city councillor and ask him where the city is at with this project. I understand they are going to be holding an
open house at the end of the month, and I understood that your department would
be there at this open house. So I will
bring the information to them, and we will see what is holding this project up.
The
other project I had some concerns with was the reconstruction of
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, we have continuously
been working together with the city and the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr.
Ernst) in terms of developing the final proposal on that. It has been sort of a
changing ball game from the time we sat down with them.
Maybe just to give a little bit of background,
initially, we had talked about doing some cost‑sharing before the R.M. of
Headingley separated. There were certain
PRs that we had designated to give back to the city, and if they took those
over, we would cost‑share certain portions of the Highway 75 from Rue Des
Trappistes to the south, which is the
So
we cut one deal, and in the meantime, Headingley held their vote and then
proceeded with separation, and that changed the ball game to some degree. Further discussions took place where
initially we talked of participating in the capital end of it providing they
took over certain roads‑‑[interjection] Nine million. It ultimately ended up, we are talking about
over $11 million, and part of it comes through my department. A good portion of it comes through the
Department of Urban Affairs in terms of their priority projects.
It
was basically a cost‑sharing that was being worked out and has not been
completed. We are very close to it. We are trying to get things pinned down on
paper in terms of‑‑I am told that we are finalizing cost estimates
and then have to go back to Treasury Board between Urban Affairs and myself in
terms of who pays what in the total project.
Ultimately, the discussions were that we would be paying possibly as
much as $11 million out of a $17‑million project. I am using round figures on that, and the
city would actually undertake the work.
The
biggest cost portion of the thing, of course, is the crossing of the
I,
personally, would have liked to see it escalate a lot faster than it has, but
we are talking, and I think we can get things resolved and move things
forward. It has not delayed the whole
project. I believe they are moving ahead
with certain of the design and the survey end of it, and the box culvert end of
it is part of it as well‑‑oh, the bridge, now.
So
I am thankful to the member for St. Norbert who, of course, representing the
area, has been on my case as well as the city's case, trying to get things
moved forward. I respect that and
compliment him for that. It has been a
long, slow process when you have two authorities that try and resolve a major
project of this nature. But I am
confident that we are close to maybe getting this thing resolved, and that we
can take and go to the next stages to move it forward.
* (2140)
Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Acting Chairperson, possibly you are not
aware, but when Dillon came forward with the suggestions for the construction
of the section of highway, they actually came into the community. We had a fairly large turnout at this
event. We had approximately 150‑200
people turn up to give their ideas on the project. They had shown both the box culvert and the
bridge concept, both with a twin structure, single structure, and different
medium selections.
We
came back with 92 percent in favour of the bridge concept. A lot of it was due to concerns on the
environment because of the environmental impact that the original box culverts had
on the
Also, just to the south, we have one area
there that for the past 10 years has only had approximately three feet of
shoulder. For this being a major highway coming into the city of
So
it is about time that governments did move ahead, and I do appreciate the
minister's help in getting this project ahead.
I know it was going nowhere until 1988 or '89 when this government came
into power, because for 25 years all they ever did was talk about it and
nothing ever got done. I am glad to see
that there is finally action that is happening, and it took this government to
do that. I applaud you, and my community
applauds you for that.
One
of the inquiries I have is on a policy matter of your department toward capital
projects. Are we looking, in the future,
at possibly paving shoulders on Pembina Highway going out to basically St.
Adolphe on the east side? What is
happening is the bicycle long‑distance riders at this time are going down
St. Mary's Road to St. Adolphe, coming across St. Adolphe to 75 Highway, down
75 to
There are up to 25 and 30 bikes, and it is
making it very unsafe. I am wondering if
we are going to have any type of a policy where some of these shoulders may be
paved to assist these long‑distance riders in their trek. It is becoming a wave of the future and I
think it is something that we should be looking at, not only for the protection
of the riders on the bikes but I think for the safety of the motorists.
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, on the issue of
bicycle paths or trails, the thing that has surfaced and is surfacing more
extensively every year as more people take up the recreational activity of
biking‑‑and more pressure is coming down on the department in terms
of providing exactly what the member is referring to, paved shoulders or
bicycle trails. At the present time,
realizing certain studies have taken place and pressure is mounting, especially
in certain areas like the road down 200, I believe, up to St. Mary's Road,
basically to St. Adolphe is one of the favourite ones where we did a recapping
or repaving of the road. We have not
moved on that road in terms of paving the shoulder which was a request, and it
is based a lot on the financial availability of funding.
However, we did make a major policy change
last year where we are now looking at our major PTHs, the paving of
shoulders. The first project that we
undertook that way was on Highway 16 Yellowhead North where we had redone the
shoulders, shoulder widening, and then subsequently with our paving contract we
expanded to include paved shoulders.
This is a new policy that we have in place in terms of starting to move
in that direction. I can assure the member that in some of the activities that
are going to be taking place this summer, that under our major PTHs we are
looking at paving the shoulders. That
will not necessarily address the total concern in terms of bikers, but I think
by moving in that direction there is an element of safety at least in some
areas where we will be doing this.
The
other thing of course is that when we expand our program, instead of just
repaving it, to do the shoulders as well would mean we will do less miles of
total projects. We need the money again,
partly, but I just want to assure the member that we are getting more cognizant
and aware of the safety end of it for cyclists in the province, especially
around the city. We are looking at
trying to not necessarily get involved in doing it‑‑once you start
on one of those things where you develop a special bicycle path, I mean where
does it stop? It is just a matter of not
having enough funds to do that.
Anyway, Mr. Acting Chairperson, I certainly do
not want to belittle the concern that the member has expressed in terms of
safety for cyclists, and we are looking at that very carefully.
Mr. Laurendeau: In closing, Mr. Acting Chairperson, I would
like to thank the minister and his staff for the work that they have done in
the community of St. Norbert over the past number of years and the work that is
coming ahead in the future.
One
of the projects that I am looking forward to this summer is the reconstruction
of
I
think with the minister's help and his staff in lobbying the federal
government, possibly we can continue to do these projects, which will be here
for a long time to come. Thank you.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Acting Chairperson, I have just a quick
comment. The minister may not have this
information here. He can maybe provide
it at a later date to me.
When the minister's department puts together
their priority list of roads and highways that need upgrading through the capital
program, is there a preliminary cost that is attached to those projects?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, yes, when we have the
first stage, let us say the survey design end of it, staff does an estimate on
that. We put aside so‑and‑so‑much
money. It is difficult to be precise in
terms of acquisition of right‑of‑way, but staff, once they have
done the survey design, have a pretty good idea of how much material is going
to be involved and what is involved. So
I, from my figures, see a preliminary estimate in terms of what something would
cost.
* (2150)
We
do not necessarily want to run around making this information available,
because once we do the tendering we are hoping for the best bid to come
in. If contractors basically would know
what we are looking at, then it would destroy the concept of the tendering
system. By not releasing that
information, except for ourselves I guess, by and large, I have to say that the
bidding in the last number of years, because of a hungry industry out there,
has been very, very competitive. In
fact, in the grading end of it I think we are probably still bidding on what
used to be 1985 prices. So the industry
out there is very competitive. They are
hurting and are bidding very, very beneficially for the province in terms of
getting the most bang for the buck.
Mr. Reid: Would it be possible, when the minister
provides a copy of his project sheet, which he in the earlier Estimates
indicated he would provide for the critics, if he could, where possible, provide
an estimate by his department of the cost that is anticipated to cover those
specific projects? The minister
indicated it may not be possible at all, because it is only possible after the
surveys and design portion has been progressed.
If the projects that are on his list have been prioritized and have
moved to that point, could he indicate on that list that might come forward?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I want to be a little
cautious so I do not make a commitment of providing that information if it is
not within the policy guidelines to do that.
I will have a review to see whether that is something that‑‑because
information of that nature, if I make that available, it is no reflection on
the member, or if I provide it for one critic I have to provide it for both,
that this information does not necessarily get out there.
I
will have to review exactly whether that would be reasonable to do. I am not trying to be cute with that. That is something that I would want to
undertake before I make a commitment of doing that.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): Item 8. Expenditures Related to Capital (a)
Construction and Upgrading of Provincial Trunk Highways, Provincial Roads and
Related Projects $110,600,000‑‑pass; (b) Aid to Cities, Towns and
Villages $1,300,000‑‑pass; (c) Work in Local Government Districts
and Unorganized Territory $3,760,000‑‑pass; (d) Rural
Resolution 15.8: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $118,632,100 for Highways and Transportation for the fiscal
year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
The
last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Highways and
Transportation is item 1.(a) Minister's Salary.
At this point, we request that the minister's staff leave the table for
the consideration of this item.
1.(a) Minister's Salary $20,600.
Mr. Reid: Twenty thousand, six hundred‑‑a
substantial amount for the minister.
Some of the questions the minister had indicated earlier that he would
answer under other sections, of course, we have had to hold in abeyance until
the Minister's Salary because of our inability to move back to the
Transportation Policy section.
I
had written to the minister's department, Department of Driver and Vehicle
Licensing, with respect to Pan Am Freight Systems. The minister's deputy minister had responded
to me with some correspondence. Our
concern was that there were companies in this province, trucking companies in
this province that were acting as such, were impersonating carriers, and it is
my understanding did not have operating authorities. I had written to the department requesting
that they take some action.
I
did ask the minister questions on this in the last Estimates last session. I did come forward, as the minister indicated
we need to put forward to his department for consideration bills of lading that
were timely, in other words, were within the six‑month time expiry limit
that had been indicated to me. I did put
those forward, and then the department comes back and says they are unable to
take any action, that the bills of lading are insufficient to provide any kind
of evidence to support the claims that were made that companies were acting
without authority to do so. In fact,
their names were on bills of lading showing quite clearly that they were acting
as carriers when they did not have the authority to do so. When I brought this forward no action was
taken.
Is
there a reason why, when evidence is presented showing quite clearly, in the
name where it says carrier, that a company acting as a carrier without
authority should not be prosecuted? Can the minister explain that, please?
Mr. Driedger: The cases the member brought forward to my
department were referred to the Motor Transport Board which basically reviewed
what was happening there, investigated, and as a result, imposed fines within
the jurisdiction of what they could do.
In one particular case, the fines were not paid, and as a result, they
lifted the operating licence for that individual.
I
have raised this with the chairman of the Motor Transport Board, and as far as
they had jurisdiction to operate on, they had moved. That included, first of all, imposing a fine
and then by the fine not being paid, they cancelled the authority of the
individual company to be able to be a carrier.
So these things are out there.
I
am not quite sure what the member is making reference to. Maybe he can clarify
that.
Mr. Reid: It might help the minister if I used the name
of the company, and he might be more familiar with the background then. Pan
American Freight Systems Incorporated was the company that was shown as a
carrier, and it is my understanding, in checking with the department, that this
company does not have authorities to operate as a carrier in this province.
Yet
when there was a show‑cause hearing, the show‑cause recommendations
or suggestions that came back from the Motor Transport Board indicated that
they had no jurisdiction over this company to pursue any action, and it would
be up to, I think it was the Justice department, but it is my understanding
that the minister's department first must bring forward complaints to the
Justice department from concerns that are raised with his department officials.
We
have done that. We have raised the
concerns. We have shown the bill of
ladings in a timely fashion, within that six‑month time frame, and yet no
action was taken.
Can
the minister indicate what other evidence‑‑because there are jobs
at risk here, jobs from legitimate carriers‑‑can the minister
suggest that members of the industry would bring forward before the minister's
department would take any action? What is
it that we can do to help you in this matter?
Mr. Driedger: It is my understanding from the chairman of
the Motor Transport Board that the evidence brought forward was investigated
and that within the jurisdiction as a quasi‑judicial board, they took what
action they could.
That does not take away from the opportunity
for an individual to take other legal action, but within the purview and
responsibilities of the Motor Transport Board, they did what they could in
terms of imposing fines and removing potential authority. This is the information I have.
If
the member is not satisfied with that, I am prepared to go back to the chairman
of the Motor Transport Board and get a more specific written reply from him
exactly as to what they can do within the purview of their authority as a quasi‑judicial
board and how they had viewed‑‑because it was my understanding that
the information on the bill of ladings was adequate in terms of pursuing
whatever they could do within their jurisdiction.
I
can undertake to further clarify that.
This is the information that I basically received from the chairman of
the Motor Transport Board. I will give
him a further clarification if he wants.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that. I sense he is sincere that he wants to
protect the trucking industry and being that companies that operate without
authorities that would be issued by the province and by the minister's
department, I would think that the minister's department would take these
matters seriously, or at least I am sure he would, and would take whatever
actions are necessary.
* (2200)
Like I say, the Motor Transport Board, in a
show‑cause hearing said they had no jurisdiction over this company. In fact, they were released from further
attendance at that show‑cause while the other participants had to
continue until a decision was rendered.
I
would appreciate if the minister could come back with some information that
would further explain this because if there is something that we are not doing
here, this company from my understanding is still continuing to operate without
authorities. They are still showing
their name under the carrier heading on the bills of lading, and it is taking
away jobs from legitimate carriers in this province.
Mr. Driedger: I will undertake to get further clarification
from how the Highway Transport Board looked at it and viewed it. But in defence of the Highway Transport
Board, I want to say that I am honestly convinced and very defensive that
whatever actions they take, they do in a very fair and responsive manner to try
and be fair and deal with the transportation, the trucking industry, in a
consistent and fair manner.
I
think if the member takes the opportunity to check with people in the industry
that Mr. Norquay as chairman has earned a reputation for being responsible, I
might add that he was the chairman at the time when I took over office, took
over government, and has been consistent continually in terms of how he wheels
and deals with the people in the transportation industry and as a result has
gained recognition throughout Canada in terms of being a fair individual and
being very knowledgeable in dealing with the issues that are under his
responsibility.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that. I look forward to any information he can
provide that would shed some light on this, and anything we can do to assist
him to straighten this out, we would view that favourably and do what we can to
assist the department.
I
have another concern here with respect to the minister's department of motor
vehicle licensing. I have looked up the
legislation under The Highway Traffic Act.
It refers to indebtedness to MPIC.
I
have a constituent of mine who has been sent a letter by MPIC saying that the
individual is allegedly responsible for an incident that happened that involved
damage to a motor vehicle. The alleged incident is said to have occurred when
my constituent was a pedestrian. MPIC is
now seeking reimbursement of any of those costs for that damage that is said to
have been committed by the pedestrian.
Is
it a policy that MPIC, through The Highway Traffic Act for which the minister
is responsible, would seek restitution from a pedestrian? Is it not the intent and the purpose of the
MPIC repayment for indebtedness to occur when there are vehicles involved, not
pedestrian and vehicles?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, this question would
be better addressed to the minister responsible for Autopac. My responsibility through the Registrar, who
is now my acting deputy, is basically with the registration end of it.
The
information in terms of when people have an infraction, speeding, stop sign,
drinking infractions, you know, the system, as the court finds these people
guilty, the allocation of demerits, et cetera, for example, in accidents as
well, in many cases, it is my understanding‑‑and sometimes I have
questioned this as to whether Autopac handles this right in terms of where it
is a questionable accident‑‑they automatically allocate 50 percent
to each individual. Then when you have
two of those, it is already a full charge against you.
Sometimes in spite of individuals that have
come and said the police report held them innocent, Autopac still makes that
judgment call, that it is a 50‑50 thing.
It creates a lot of confusion and frustration out there, but these are
questions that would probably be better addressed to the honourable minister
responsible for Autopac. I cannot
really, from this perspective, say how we play a role in that end of it.
Mr. Reid: Maybe to assist the minister in that, it is
The Highway Traffic Act, Section 269‑2, Indebtedness to MPIC. What the minister's department is indicating
is that even though the individual that has alleged to have committed that
offence has not gone through the courts yet, the Department of Motor Vehicles
has now been requested by MPIC to withhold licensing privileges for the
individual even though the individual is said to have committed the offence
while a pedestrian.
I
do not understand how the two can equate.
He has been asked to pay the restitution. He has to appear before the courts, but he is
innocent until proven guilty as far as my understanding of the law in this
province. In that sense, how can the
Department of Motor Vehicles withhold licensing privileges until the
individual, if it is going to happen, has been found guilty. Maybe the minister can investigate that and
maybe report back when he gets an opportunity.
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I will check with my
registrar to see exactly what the process is in terms of how this evolves in
terms of responsibility and who the decision‑making bodies are. I have just given that undertaking that I
will try and get that information so there is a clarification as to what the
process is, what our responsibility is and what MPIC's is in terms of
allocating responsibility and, within the regulations, what my registrar can do
or cannot do. [interjection] For pedestrians. [interjection] Yes, that is sort
of a new wrinkle for me because I do not know exactly how my registrar will
deal with pedestrians. It is usually‑‑our
activities are related to drivers and to registration. So I will try and get a clarification on that
issue.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that and look
forward to the response. My constituent
is quite concerned because his licensing opportunity is legally expired as of
Friday, so now he is unable to drive. If
the minister can expedite that, my constituent would appreciate that.
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, because the member is
referring to a specific case, if he could possibly let some of my assistants
maybe know tomorrow the details of it so that we can get that information to
the registrar, because I sense an urgency here in terms of what is happening
aside from the process that he is questioning.
So if he can give us some details on that, I can have the registrar
undertake to get the details on the specifics back to the member.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that, and I will
undertake to contact his staff tomorrow.
The
minister had talked in the beginning of the Estimates process during his
opening comments about short‑line legislation. There is obviously some legislation in other
jurisdictions, other western provinces‑‑there is some in
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the only province
that has short‑line rail legislation in place right now is
I
did not have that fortune of having that kind of funding or staff available to
me. So the people that are my policy
researchers and advisers have been working on this. We looked very closely at what Saskatchewan
has done, whose legislation has been in place two or three years, who are
coming forward with major, quite substantial amendments.
We
are addressing already in our legislation some of the concerns that they looked
at. We think we have simplified it and
have come up with what we think will be used as model legislation across the
country. We almost feel, aside from the
initial steps that
* (2210)
I
want to compliment the Legislative Counsel, but more importantly my staff
people who have spent a lot of time working out the details in terms of
addressing legislation that was going to be as simple as possible, so we did
not have a big cloud of bureaucracy involved.
That simplified the process but still addressed the safety and
regulatory requirements, the environmental requirements that we looking under
the legislation.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
So
the member asked when. I am hoping that
possibly by next week we should have the legislation available. By and large, it has been packaged. It is a matter of making sure that the
spreadsheets show exactly what I want them to show. Staff is looking at that. Basically we have it ready to go, so it
should be just a very short time until I have it before the members.
Mr. Reid: What is it that indicates a need for short‑line
legislation at this time that could not wait for some time into the
future? Why would we have not looked at
this in the past? What is it that is causing the minister to move forward with
short‑line legislation at this time?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, already three, four years
ago we had, during the course of abandonment that was taking place, individual
companies and groups that were looking at taking over short line, operating a
short‑line railway.
One
of the complications was, because the major railways operate under federal
legislation, there was no proper provision for it. There is no hidden reason why we are bringing
it forward now other than the pressure was starting to come down where people were
making inquiries, and because Saskatchewan did it, and we know that the other
provinces are in the same process of doing it.
We basically felt that this is accommodating legislation, so that when
the time comes that this will be in place so that we do not have to go through
a two‑year‑‑and it has taken us two years to develop it to
the point where it is at now.
If
somebody is going to come forward‑‑and we have had that request
come forward from the Lowden Sub. I am
trying to recall the name right. Anyway,
in my colleague the Minister of Energy and Mines' (Mr. Downey) area, there was
a group that has been pushing to see whether they would be able to take over a
line that is still in operation right now.
It is out in the Waskada area, somewhere in that area. That is what basically triggered us starting
to talk about it.
Ultimately, we have moved forward, and we are
going to bring and put into place that if there are groups or individuals or
companies that want to move in that direction that they do not have to wait two
years before it happens. It is important
that we have this in place, because we feel with the federal legislation and
the arrangements and the responsibilities that they have to CN and CP, we need
this to give certain protections and still provide the requirements for safety,
which is the big concern. We feel that
it is a very appropriate time now.
Mr. Reid: With all of the concern that has been raised
about branchline abandonment and the possibility that the bayline itself is at
risk considering the decisions that have been made from the Royal Commission on
National Passenger Transportation‑‑the NTA studies show it to be at
risk as well by the recommendations that have come forward‑‑does
the minister see that the bayline itself could become one of the short lines to
be operating in this province if a decision comes forward to allow the major
carriers, major railways to abandon that line?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I sincerely hope the
bayline is not one that we would be looking at in the foreseeable future as
being a short line to allow the private sector or somebody else to be
involved. I am still optimistic that the
From my perspective, in terms of bringing
forward the legislation, I certainly do not view it as something as a backup to
the bayline at the present time. I hope
it does not come to that. Ultimately, if
the whole thing collapses in terms of the port and CN's position with the line,
then of course that would be an option that could be considered at that time.
Mr. Reid: Does the minister have an indication from his
department staff as to the number of miles of branchline that are proposed for
abandonment, where those lines are and whether or not any of those lines are
candidates for short line operation?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, that is very difficult to
answer. There are so many unknown issues
up in the air at the present time. The
federal government is undertaking a study in terms of establishing a main rail
system which potentially could even talk of amalgamating certain lines between
CN and CP. That has grave concerns for
myself in terms of future implications to the point where I hesitate whether we
should participate in any further hearings.
But if you do not and they proceed anyway, I would rather be inside
knowing what is going on than being outside and knowing nothing.
The
potential changing of the method of payment, changing of the Crow, is another
thing that is potentially in the mix right now, which creates more concerns for
me. If the two come down simultaneously,
it could open up the opportunity for the railways to abandon lines that they
feel are not profitable. Which ones that
would be, you know, I would be speculative to say that at the present
time. Should it ever come to that, then
there are lines that could be probably looked at with a profit motive for
groups, communities, organizations.
Then the legislation at least is going to be
in place, and we would want to be very, I think with the information that some
of my staff people have, cautious to make sure that we do not give false
information to people who are looking and saying, well, hey, we can run this
line and make a profit. There has to be
a bit of a‑‑some background information and a business plan in
place. You might run a profit for two
years and then lose everything that you have put into it.
So
we have a variety of short lines in the States that are doing well, that are
profitable. We think that we have enough
information that if somebody wants to get into this we can help them make
decisions that would be beneficial in terms of whether they should get into it
or not. This legislation will accommodate
for them to get into that system to allow for them, where there is a short‑line
potential, to tie into the main lines and interchange and things of this
nature. So this is all based and set up
in such a way that the thing can function, because if the main line carrier, CN
or CP, would want to cut off, let us say, the short‑line entrepreneur,
the whole thing would be a disaster. So
that is why we are setting up this kind of a system, and I feel comfortable
that we are accomplishing that.
* (2220)
Mr. Reid: It is my understanding, and I could be wrong
and the minister can correct me if I am, that the major railways have applied
for abandonment or are in the process of applying for abandonment of certain
portions of branch lines. Would the
minister's department have that information, and, if so, is it possible to get
a copy of the lines that have been applied for or they anticipate being applied
for abandonment?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, under the existing
legislation, certain lines are protected till the year 2000. Basically that is the base where we start
from. To my view, we being in 1993,
there are a lot of things that will trigger an escalation of that process in
terms of making provision for them to maybe abandon sooner, based on the
information that I just put on the record, the rail study, the method of
payment. These things could all have a
bearing on it.
I
will try and have my Transportation Policy people bring forward the present
status, where we are at in terms of which lines are protected and which ones
are protected to the year 2000, just to give the member a snapshot in terms of
where we are.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that. It will provide us with an opportunity to see
which areas are going to be impacted. If there is a possibility amongst my
colleagues or other members of the House where we can look at potential for
shortline railroads being set up if those lines receive the approval for
abandonment during the speed‑up process that the federal government seems
to be intent on pursuing, then we will have a better opportunity to view the
impact of those abandonments upon those regions of the province.
The
minister talked about the method of payment and, of course, the impact that it
is going to have upon the province, not only in changes to the railway
structure itself and to the producers themselves. Has the minister's department undertaken any
studies to determine what the cost impact is going to be for his department with
a change in the method of payment? We
are talking here about maintenance and capital programs for his highway
structure.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the position that my
department has continually put forward, both my colleague the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) as well as through the federal government, is that
the rationalization of abandonment‑‑you know, the process itself
even before my tenure as Minister of Highways and Transportation, there was a
joint position put forward by the four western provinces in terms of the process
of abandonment. That position has actually never changed between the four
provinces. We have continually put
forward the position that as abandonment comes forward that there should be
compensation and offset not only for the provincial government but the
municipalities and the communities.
When the railway is going to abandon the line,
they do it because they say it is not profitable so there must be some savings
for them. Our position has always been
that there should be some compensation for the players involved because
invariably as you abandon the line there is going to be more pressure on the
municipal and provincial roads, so it would only seem logical. The federal
government and the western grain transportation people have continually not wanted
to listen to that. We keep putting it
forward time and time again. At certain
times I thought that we were making some progress that would be considering
that.
I
think that debate is going to escalate into a much higher level in terms of the
compensation factor as a method of payment becomes more into the debate. I think it is an obvious thing. I mean you abandon a line, where is the
traffic going to go? It is going to go
on municipal roads and it is going to go on provincial roads. I adamantly have put forward that position
that there has to be some payment for that.
Mr. Reid: Has the minister's department undertaken any
studies or analysis of the recent announcement by the federal government where
they changed the method of payment? Has
your department undertaken to see what the impact is going to be upon the cost
of the highways infrastructure in the province?
Has he also undertaken any impact studies or analysis of the impact upon
employment opportunities in the railway itself in the province?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, my transportation policy
staff people have been working to try and get as much information as
possible. It is very hard to quantify
the exact impact of what would happen if you change, for example, the method of
payment, how much of a shift is it going to be first of all from straight rail
industry when you have the option of going with trucking or the rail
industry. That is only one element. The other element is the abandonment
potential on top of that. It is so hard
to quantify that. We have some basic
information. I will have to go back and
just find out exactly how specific our information is. A lot of it is basically speculative, in my
mind, at least. I will try and see whether I can find some more specific information
to address that.
Mr. Reid: Well, the best‑case scenario would be
that we would not lose any jobs. If
there is a worst‑case scenario, it would be interesting to know what
impact it is going to have upon us in this province, not only for my own community
which has historically been a railway repair centre, but for many other
communities not only in and about the city of Winnipeg, but other communities
in the province would like to know as well, I am sure, what the impact upon
rail employment is going to be.
So
if the minister can provide some information or some analysis on that, we would
appreciate that. I am sure the people
who are employed in those jobs would like to know as well.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, why I say it is hard to
quantify that is because the member is well aware that CN, for example, has a
three‑year plan in place to reduce their employment by 10,000 to 11,000
people across
Mr. Reid: Well, whatever information the minister can
provide as his staff does their studies, I would appreciate to be kept informed
of what the impact would be.
The
minister mentioned, too, that the railways‑‑CN in particular‑‑were
going to eliminate some 11,000 jobs.
Has
the minister had any discussions with CN or does he anticipate having any
discussions in the near future with respect to the impact of his government's
budget decisions on the employment prospects for CN in this province during the
coming year?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, yes, both with CP and CN,
there has been ongoing dialogue, verbally and written correspondence, that we
have undertaken based on the arguments that the rail lines put forward to us
that we were putting them into an unfair tax position by the locomotive diesel
fuel tax, other taxes. This dialogue has been going on now for four or five
years. I was addressing some of the
concerns, in fact quite substantially, in this last budget. This dialogue is escalating at the present time. In fact, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is playing
a role in this as well in terms of making sure that we get some advantage
potentially out of this.
In
CP's case, they have announced their communications centre out of here which
potentially could be as high as 210 jobs, 165, potentially over 200 they say,
but whatever. Any job already in the
right direction is better than one going the other way. So we are in communication with CN as well,
stressing the fact that we have taken to be responsible in terms of anything
that affects jobs investment from their perspective in
That is, like I say, not only from myself
directly to the president and to the chairman of the board, and I want to
assure the member, without going too much further than that, there is a
considerable amount of action in process right now.
Mr. Reid: Well, both CN and CP, I hope, are going to
give the minister some assurances that, because the government has moved in a
direction of reducing the motive fuel tax,
* (2230)
Does the minister know whether or not the
recent budget reductions for the motive fuel tax have met the needs of
equalizing or levelling the playing field between the trucking and the rail
industry, or does he anticipate that further cuts in the motive fuel tax will
be necessary to level that playing field, as the railways have requested for
quite a number of years now?
Mr. Driedger: Unfortunately, there has been that ongoing controversy‑‑I
should not say controversy, but differential in opinion between the trucking
industry and the rail industry, the rail industry feeling that the trucking
industry is being subsidized by governments building highways, whereas they
have to look after their rail system themselves, then, of course, the tax
impositions of the locomotive fuel tax.
The
fact that we have addressed the 1 cent last year and the 3.15 cents a litre
this year, which is another $6‑million shot in the arm for the industry,
brings us in line basically with the other western provinces. Some of the eastern provinces are still lower
than that at the present time. However,
Sometimes, when you tax too high related to
other provinces, you are a loser instead of a gainer to even the tax that is
coming in. For example, the reduction of
the aviation fuel tax from 5 cents a litre to 4.2 cents is drawing rave reviews
by the air industry in terms of wanting now to stop here and fill up. By doing
that, we actually probably gain more than what we did with the 5 cents. That is the kind of thing that is evolving
out there.
Whether the rail industry is totally happy
with what has happened‑‑my gosh, after all these years of our
having collected the tax that we did, by moving in this direction, it must give
them a comfort level, and certainly they are prepared to talk with us, and we
are trying to see whether we can get the maximum advantage out of it.
Mr. Reid: The debate could continue for hours on the
one topic alone. The residents of my
community, and I am sure of other communities in the province where there are a
significant number of railway employees living, are quite concerned, if they,
themselves, as taxpayers, are going to be asked to make up the difference in
the revenue that the province needs to operate programs, and if we give
concessions by way of reduction of motive fuel taxes, that we recover or we
reach something out of it, quid pro quo in the sense, in the sense that we get
something back for what we are giving up by way of concessions.
I
hope that the minister will seriously press the railways to give some
assurances for employment levels in this province so that we do not just give
up that tax revenue which I know the railways have been pressing for a long
period of time, but we get something back in return for it. Otherwise, we would have given up much more
than what we would gain in net effect of this.
I hope the minister has taken that into consideration, and I hope that
was the goal.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, that is part of the heavy‑duty
discussions that are taking place between the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), the Premier (Mr. Filmon), and myself with the key people from both
railways.
I
just have a question. Does the member
want to have a break for a little bit, or how much longer is he planning to
go? Take about five minutes?
Madam Chairperson: Is that the will of the committee, a five
minute recess? [agreed]
This committee will reconvene at 10:40
p.m.
* * *
The
committee took recess at 10:35 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at
10:40 p.m.
Mr. Reid: There was a report that was released by the
NTA. It was my understanding that
The
recommendations, of course, in the report that was released just a short time
ago appear to have some serious consequences for the province. Can the minister give an indication on what
his thoughts were to the 55 recommendations that came forward? What impact does he see this report having on
the province?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let me first of all agree
with the fact that at the time when the deregulation under the trucking
industry took place Manitoba was the one that insisted on a five‑year
process and that a review should take place after that. It was an optional thing that basically the
federal government had allowed‑‑well, no. They did the review. We worked very closely with the MTA, the
Manitoba Trucking Association, who, in conjunction with us put forward the
position that there should be a continuation of the process. The federal government did not agree and the
other provinces did not agree. We were sort of by ourselves again on this. As a result, that process has not
continued. We are now deregulated in
terms of extra provincial trucking industry.
In
terms of the recommendations that came forward in the study, we made an
extensive presentation at that time to the Standing Committee on the National
Transportation Act. I think I gave
copies to the member as well in terms of what we presented. The member probably
knows the process at the present time.
The commission that did this study, which is now disbanded, made their
submissions public, an extended version of it as well as a condensed version of
it. I am going through this, and I do
not have the final assessment done in terms of all the recommendations. Staff are still working on that. We are not rejecting the whole
recommendations carte blanche. There are
certain areas in there where they have addressed some of the concerns we had; others
are recommendations that we can certainly not support at all.
The
study has been now referred to a standing committee on transportation which is
now taking submissions. We are preparing
our submission to them again. Where they
have done the things that we recommended we want to give them credit, but we
want to raise very strong objections to some of the other ones that are, in my
mind, almost off the wall, some of the recommendations that are there. Staff are developing that process right now.
Once we are ready to make our submission to the
standing committee that is dealing with it now, we will probably have a
document that is going to be available to members of the Legislature as
well. Certainly, it is not going to be a
confidential document that we are going to be submitting to them. It is going to be consistent with the position
that we put forward under our first recommendations to the commission and,
based on our views on that, we will be addressing and putting our views forward
to the standing committee.
Mr. Reid: I agree with the minister's assessment. Some of the recommendations were off the
wall. We on this side have some very
serious concerns that the individual who was chairing the committee hearings
has now gone on to become the chair of the NTA, the same body from my understanding
that is then going to be responsible probably for implementing these
recommendations. It will be very
difficult for the individual to say, no, the recommendations are no good after
you were the person who chaired the committee that came forward with them in
the first place. I am not sure exactly
what it is that the minister is going to be up against with for the
recommendations that are going to be detrimental to
Can
the minister indicate what areas that he feels uncomfortable with, because
there are several here that refer to rail lines themselves with respect to
abandonment, discontinuance of rail operations, possibly the bayline itself,
feasibility of separating railway operations from the ownership, maintenance of
the plant, separating the track from the company, the airline question as well,
the impact it is going to have? What
areas can the minister just indicate offhand that he recalls that he senses
would be detrimental to
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, in an issue of this
nature, I think the member when looking through those things‑‑and I
have just had a very cursory view of that, but my staff, like I say, Dennis
Schaefer who has been a very key figure for me, has been working on this
thing. I am very confident that our
views are no different than the opposition members' in terms of what is best
for
So
the things that negatively affect Manitoba, which is the service to our
northern communities, whether it is through VIA Rail, whether it is through the
freight industry‑‑if the member wanted to go through them one by
one, we could do that. I do not have all
the replies and that, but I think he should have a comfort level that we are
not off on a different tangent from what their views would be as to what would
be the best for
I
just want to assure him again that as staff brings forward my cursory review of
it, we developed a position that we are going to put forward to the standing
committee that that ultimately will be public information. I feel confident in my mind that the member
could feel a comfort level which I am sure he must have felt when he read the
report that we put before the National Transportation Commission with the odd
little variance maybe, but other than that I think it was consistent with what
would be a Manitoba position that everybody could feel comfortable with.
I
can assure him that is going to be the same position that we take, very critically
in some areas and other areas where they seem to have listened to what we said,
whether it was just us or other provinces, but we went to great pains to make
that submission. I think some of the
things were heard. Others, I do not know
where they get them from. So those are
the ones where we feel that are totally out of line and totally nonbeneficial
to
Mr. Reid: Being that the
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, in my first actual
visitation with the Minister of Transport for Saskatchewan, Mr. Koskie, just a
little over a week ago when I was at the Westac meeting with him and the
British Columbia Minister of Highways and Transportation, as well as a
representative from Alberta, I would like to think that there would probably be
more of a comfort level between Manitoba and Saskatchewan in terms of joint
views that we have because we are the two basic provinces that are affected,
more so even than Alberta and certainly much more than B.C.
The
B.C. position in terms of abandonment and the recommendations probably does not
have that much effect on them as it does on
So
the provincial ministers together with the federal minister are tentatively
meeting on the 14th of May to deal with basically the National Highways
Program, but it will give me an occasion to meet with Mr. Koskie again and set
up a series of discussions further on this matter. So I feel a comfort level as I did with the
minister before him, Bernie Wiens, that irrespective of our political
philosophical differences, we have the same views in mind as to what benefits
the
* (2250)
Mr. Reid: I think that might carry more weight with the
National Transportation Agency or the Standing Committee on Transport that
would ultimately have to put forward recommendations to Parliament on this. I think it is serious enough that its impacts
are going to be serious enough in their consequences for the Prairies. I just say that it might be in our best
interest to look at a common position put forward on that.
There were also recommendations that came out
from the Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation. I could not believe the serious impact that
it is going to have on this province if those recommendations are going to be
implemented, much the same way that the NTA commission reports were going to
impact. Does the minister have any
position on the recommendations by the royal commission with respect to
passenger transportation in this province?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, on a general basis, mostly
negative, because the recommendations on the passenger transportation‑‑there
is not very much that sounds positive for
Ultimately on that course, despite the
optimism that the people from VIA were trying to give me that certain lines
were doing very favourably and that there was an increased usage and that
people were lauding the kind of service that they were providing compared to
what they did at one time, I have grave concerns as to what the further
implications would be to providing service for northern communities.
Mr. Reid: Has the minister met with or communicated
with the headquarters of VIA Rail to find out what their anticipated plans are
now that they are aware of the reduction in the level of support that they
receive from the federal government? Has
VIA Rail indicated to the minister any changes in their operations in this
province?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, my discussions with the
officials from VIA were prior to the budget coming down. We have not had any correspondence, verbally
or by written correspondence with them, to date. We are looking at this. We hope to, once I have a little bit more
room and time to take and find out exactly, aside from what we perceive the
impact is going to be, I would like to have directly from VIA what they
perceive the impact is going to be and the kind of service that they will be
providing here. I think that is very
important for Manitobans.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that. I am sure the people that are serviced by the
VIA lines as well as the employees would be interested. So if the minister can provide some
information on that once he determines what it is, we would appreciate knowing
that.
One
last question in this area, in the annual report it referred to the
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I believe the member is
referring to the road railer, which
We
have been gathering information from
Mr. Reid: So then it is still under review and pending
further developments.
There was some correspondence with respect to
rural carriers, and it was addressed to the Premier (Mr. Filmon). The rural carriers are quite concerned about
the potential for reduced employment in the rural areas with respect to extra
provincial deregulation and the impact that it is going to have upon them.
Has
the minister provided some kind of assurance for the rural carriers that there
is going to be something in place to protect them from any type of predatory
practices that may occur should some of the larger carriers want to take over
that portion of the business? Have we
provided some assurances or some opportunity to provide that protection for
these smaller rural carriers?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, this is a very sensitive
issue. Certainly I regard it as a very
sensitive issue for rural carriers based on the deregulation that is taking
place for extra provincial activities.
The interprovincial one is a lot more sensitive in my view, because of
certain pressures that lobby groups have put forward saying, well, we should
deregulate interprovincially.
I,
coming from the rural area, feel very, very sensitive about it. What we have done, from the department's
perspective, is had a study undertaken by UMTI, who were supposed to bring
forward certain recommendations. I have
not seen the report yet. It is in the
process of coming down the stream somewhere along the line within the next
period of time. I can just assure the
member that having met with the interprovincial carriers and knowing the
concerns they have that I am going to be very, very cautious and look very,
very critically at the recommendations. This is probably going to be an area
where I will be very loath and very slow to move if there is any controversial
recommendations that come forward.
Even in my home community, I have carriers
that are affected and I know they are having major difficulty. You know, you have the larger carriers that
ultimately can possibly just swallow up the rural carriers, the smaller ones,
that provide a service for the rural communities.
There has been a massive reduction already in
terms of the carriers that are operating in
Mr. Reid: The Manitoba Association of Rural Carriers
which comprised 37 rural carriers‑‑so they have indicated in their
letter‑‑expressed some very serious concerns. I suppose the rural communities themselves
should be worried about this, if the rural carriers disappear, because their
business would be siphoned off to some of the larger carriers for
intraprovincial operations. Then, of
course, if the larger carriers decided to abandon any type of services to those
communities in the future, after they have taken over that business, then the
communities themselves will suffer. Any
business opportunities that they have, or any ventures they have in the
communities that require transportation services through trucking would then be
put at risk.
So
I hope the minister does take the appropriate steps to protect the rural
carriers not only for the jobs they provide but also for the economic well‑being
of those communities that rely on those types of services.
There has been a fair amount of lobbying
taking place over the course of the last five months, I guess, with respect to
used vehicle inspection legislation. Can
the minister provide some status or update on whether he anticipates bringing
forward that type of legislation during this current session?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I do not know whether I
understood the member correctly, whether he was talking of vehicle inspections,
or is he talking of the graduated youth licences? I am not sure. I wonder if the member could just clarify exactly
what he was talking about.
* (2300)
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for raising the second
issue. They are both important, and I will ask both questions but separately.
The
car dealers in the province have been lobbying MLAs, at least on this side and
I am sure on the minister's side as well, with respect to used vehicle inspections. This is not the first time that this
legislation has been presented to this House or anticipated to be
presented. Does the minister anticipate
that his department will implement or bring forward such legislation during the
current session?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I could take, I suppose,
about half an hour to go through the whole background and history of the long,
convoluted process with vehicle inspections in this province. I think three or four times that legislation
was passed and never proclaimed‑‑and a private member's bill last
year. I can tell the member that we are
in the very active process of bringing forward legislation to deal with vehicle
inspection in the province. If the
member has patience for another week or ten days, then he will find out whether
I have been able to package it or not.
Mr. Reid: We look forward to the legislation that the
minister brings forward to see whether or not it represents the interests of
residents in the rural area with respect to used vehicle inspections.
The
minister talked about graduated licences, and there were some reports that
there were going to be some changes in the licensing of individuals for those
that are new drivers for our province.
Does the minister anticipate there will be some changes as were reported
in the media over the course of the last month?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, this issue has been
surfacing more and more for the last short period of time. In fact, they ended up watching a program
last night which was sponsored by, I think on a national scale, a group‑‑I
forget the name of it.
It
was a very interesting scenario that they presented in terms of the graduated
drivers licence and also made reference to what various provinces were in the
process of considering. They actually
did a poll. I do not know whether I have
the results of that poll because at the end of the program they said, these are
the numbers and the options that you can phone, and then they would relay that
message on to each provincial Minister of Highways and Transportation. I do not know whether one arrived at my
desk. I have not had enough time to look
today yet but here we are looking at it.
There has been discussion. My staff and DDVL have been making some
public statements that we are looking actively at. I do not intend to implement any changes for
this coming year at the present time. I
am not saying that there is not merit in there but at the present time it is
under consideration. I do not anticipate
any action being taken within the next year.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that. The NTA, when they did their study of the
effects of deregulation on the transportation industry, there was a committee
or members of the committee that came back to
Does the minister anticipate that he is going
to raise that as one of his concerns when he goes to make his presentation to
the standing committee?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, rather than talk with
vagueness, I will just give an undertaking that once we have developed
positions on this thing that I am prepared to share that with members opposite.
He
is now going on to specifics in some of the recommendations. Again, I would rather address it on a larger
scale once I have had a better chance to really zero in on that. If the member
wants to put his position forward that he feels his view on the matter, in
terms of whether we should or should not, I would like to accept that and use
that as part of the consideration when I am developing the scenario. I would just as soon really wait until I can
take and present the outline of where we could support it, where we feel very
negative, and then if he feels he wants to either criticize or have input into
that matter I am prepared to accept that at that time.
Mr. Reid: Possibly the minister then, because we are
talking a bit about specifics here with respect to the presentation, can also
take forward our concerns that the United States, I believe, is investing many
billions of dollars into the transportation infrastructure in that country.
There is every likelihood that could have
serious repercussions or put Canada's transportation infrastructure at greater
risk through the competitive forces that would be in place if the U.S.
government invests as heavily as they say they are going to in their
infrastructure, and possibly draw to the federal Minister of Transport's
attention and to the federal government's attention the need for us to have a
transportation infrastructure investment program in this country, as well, so
that provinces like Manitoba that cannot undertake, through their own
resources, to invest in that type of program can possibly take part in, or take
advantage of, a national program or scheme to support transportation.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, this issue, I have been
promoting from the day that I came into this office and will continue to
promote and hopefully address on the 14th of May when I deal with my colleagues
from across the country as well as the federal minister. So I am totally on track with that.
I
think there is a general acceptance with premiers across the country, as well
as many of the key players across this country.
I am not talking just with those that are involved in transportation; I
am talking of the banking institutions, big corporations, that all feel the
necessity of being able to be in a competitive position with their investment
and infrastructure.
This has been one of my really pet projects
all ready for a long, long time and I intend, as the dean of the Transportation
ministers, to very, very actively support this and push for it.
Mr. Reid: I am sure there are areas that we have
disagreed on in the transportation policy, but I am sure there are areas where
we have agreed on things that would be to
I
thank the minister for the comments he has made on the issues and the
questions. It has been a longer than usual
process that we have gone through here.
We have been able to have a better understanding of the position of the
minister and his department on several of the issues, and I thank him for that
information and co‑operation on those issues.
I
believe that concludes any comments or any questions, and I look forward to any
information that the minister has indicated he is willing to bring forward.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): I also would like to join the critic from the
official opposition to say thank you to the minister and his staff. I think the staff did a great job and so did
the minister, and I would like to thank him for the co‑operation he has
given us here. We will await some of his
reports that he is going to supply us in the very near future, in the next
couple of days, I understand. Again,
thank you very much, Mr. Minister.
* (2310)
Madam Chairperson: Item 1.
Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary $20,600‑‑pass.
Resolution 15.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $4,902,500 for Highways and Transportation, Administration
and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
This concludes the Estimates for the
Department of Highways and Transportation.
Committee rise.
Call
in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Madam Deputy Speaker
(Louise Dacquay): The hour being after 10 p.m., this House is
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).