GOVERNMENT SERVICES

The Acting Chairperson (Peter Dyck): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Government Services.

Does the honourable Minister of Government Services have an opening statement?

Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to present the 1996-97 spending Estimates for the Department of Government Services. It was my pleasure a year ago to be appointed as a minister of this department, and in presenting this year's Estimates I have even more reason to believe than I did last year at this time that my department has the ability to provide excellent service in a number of ways to the people of Manitoba and to other government departments. My guidance and direction to the department has been in keeping with this government's goal to attain a balanced budget, and my honourable colleagues will note in the Estimates that we are to debate this morning that the department has reduced expenditure levels but at the same time has continued the quality of services it provides.

With the Chair's permission, what I would like to do now is highlight some of my department's recent accomplishments and plans for the coming fiscal year. My colleagues are familiar with the accommodation cost-recovery system, which I remember them asking me many questions about last year, so I know you will be interested to learn that we will be adding several special purpose government facilities as recoverable from 1996-97 and these include The Forks Tourism Centre, the fire college in Brandon and the Ag Extension Centre also in Brandon. The accommodation cost-recovery system is living up to its objectives by providing a tool to increasingly reflect the real cost of government programs. Managers are making more cost-effective decisions to minimize their space requirements with the information that we are able to provide them on the cost of the space that they occupy. The ACRS program has, in this way, been a catalyst for reducing costs beyond this department.

Mr. Chairman, a year ago I said in my opening remarks that Postal Services would achieve special operating agency status in a year, and I am pleased to announce that effective April 1, '96, mail management joins Fleet Vehicles, Materials Distribution, Land Management and becomes the fourth special operating agency to be launched from this department. I make this announcement with enthusiasm, based on the past experience and results with the first three agencies established by my department. We have seen marked improvement in operating results, service levels to clients and therefore cost savings for government.

* (0910)

Mail management in its first year of operation as an agency intends to pursue an aggressive program directed at attaining operational efficiencies and improvements. It will also initiate a number of measures to increase its ability to better meet the needs of its clients. Within its first year this new agency is projecting positive financial results, and I am advised that staff are looking forward to both the challenges and the opportunities they will face as an agency. Moving to the agency format is consistent with the department's mission to provide cost effective and responsive support services to its clients.

A year later I can again stand before you as Minister of Government Services and speak to you with even greater knowledge about a program you questioned me previously, that was the open bidding service which we spoke of in last year's Estimates. This service now has approximately 1,500 Manitoba vendors subscribing to it. This is a 55 percent increase since we started to use the system in April 1995. This increase is reflective of the efforts of the Manitoba Government Services Purchasing branch who have demonstrated OBS to hundreds of Manitoba vendors at trade shows and workshops. It also demonstrates the increasing comfort that businesses are beginning to have with the use of current technology. In addition to competing for millions of dollars of business with the Manitoba government, Manitoba vendors are now also more readily aware of opportunities from out of province. The dollars speak for themselves.

Between July and September 1995, Manitoba vendors were successful in obtaining over $3 million of business out of a possible $9 million from other jurisdictions. That translates into a 30 percent success rate for Manitoba small businesses. Within Manitoba, my department administers a purchase procedure called a directpurchase order program, DPO, and the DPO system is the tool which allows client departments to go directly to suppliers for lower-cost purchasing. This year we have increased the level of goods that can be purchased from DPO from $500 to $1,000. This is no small benefit as it will decrease paper transactions by an estimated 3,000 per year. We see this as bringing about internal savings to government and benefiting vendors throughout the province who will be supplying the needs of government departments in their locality.

Earlier in my introduction I made reference to the accommodation cost-recovery system, and I want to now draw your attention to the excellent planning and negotiating strategy carried out by the accommodation development group. With the knowledge and expertise within my department, we continue to achieve a decrease in accommodation cost. We have been using a model of office standards developed by the department in assessing client department requests and assigning space. With client department's co-operation and effort, we have been able to more effectively use the space that we occupy. We have seen a trend in departments consolidating their operations and therefore reducing the amount of space that they occupy. Reduced space of course translates into reduced dollars.

Government Services has also been cognizant of market trends and has had success in negotiating leases at lower rates, and lower rates as well translate into lower costs for the taxpayers of Manitoba. There is a trend across government to consolidate programs to achieve efficiencies and eliminate duplications, and we are presently taking steps to consolidate the activities of the Land Value Appraisal Commission with the Municipal Board. The commission and the board are now located within government-owned accommodation in the Walter Weir building at 800 Portage Avenue. This co-location will bring administrative efficiencies for both the commission and the board, and I am pleased to see this kind of co-operation, and I know my colleagues share this between departments.

The planning done by government is not always given sufficient recognition. The power of good planning and training were never more evident than during the tense days created by our recent flood situation in this province. Through the guidance of the Manitoba Emergency Measures Organization, the communities affected by the flood were able to activate emergency preparedness plans and apply the training they had received through the Emergency Measures Organization. The communities were able to meet the threat of the floodwaters and damages were far less than had been suffered in the major 1979 flood which had comparable water levels in most of these communities. I am pleased that my department carried out their day-to-day duties so effectively and so quietly. They made a difference in the lives of many people affected by the flooding.

Although not specific to my role as Minister of Government Services, I would like to comment briefly on the activities of the Regulatory Review Committee which I had the pleasure of chairing over the past several months. I am pleased to report that through the efforts of that committee and its review of all government regulations, we have been able to identify approximately a third to be streamlined or eliminated. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, we were able to identify close to 300 government forms for elimination, consolidation, streamlining, removal from regulation or electronic conversion from paper. The end result of these activities will be the elimination of almost 3,000 pages of regulatory material including 1,000 pages of forms.

I would like to comment briefly on an issue concerning disaster assistance. The federal government, provincial government and municipal governments have an agreement of long standing for the cost-sharing of damages that occur in localities when disasters occur, whether it be fire, flood, derailment or other types of disasters.

Through the auditing process conducted by the federal government approximately 10 months ago, it came to our attention that the federal government's auditors were disallowing claims made by municipal governments which had previously been entered into synchromental cost-sharing claims when municipalities chose to use their own machinery, equipment or chose to involve their own staff in doing repairs. This change in practice, a well-established practice of over a decade, has greatly concerned me and greatly concerned municipal leaders throughout our province. The reality of these changes is that the federal government will download the costs that are incurred by communities to them, and this departs from the original purpose of the cost-sharing agreement which was to allow municipalities who were inundated by exceptional costs over and above those which they could possibly be able to budget for to share and distribute those costs that they had incurred fairly and equitably over the province when costs got to certain levels or over the nation as a whole when they got to the second level.

The effect of this downloading is simply, Mr. Chairman, that those communities most affected by flood, fire or other natural occurrence would be not only the profoundly most affected in the first instance by the disaster itself but would now be asked to incur the major burden of the costs as a consequence of those events. This is unfair, and this departure from precedent on the part of the federal government is totally unacceptable to me and totally unacceptable to my colleagues in government, and I know totally unacceptable to the members on the other side of the House. We have written the federal minister repeatedly. His response has been to ask for more information. We have supplied the information, and his response has been to ask for more information. We have supplied further information, and in the last form it was over a thousand examples of precedents where the federal government has allowed cost-sharing to occur when municipalities were forced to use their own staff, machinery or equipment in doing repairs or in pre-emptive work to lessen the damages caused by these types of occurrences. The response from the federal minister was to ask for more information.

All of us around this issue grow very weary of the stonewalling that has occurred by the federal government. We recognize that the most capable level of government to respond to disasters and to the circumstances around them, to reduce the damages that may occur, to mitigate those costs to the taxpayers of our province and country is the local level of government, and this was never more clearly evidenced than during the recent flooding. The reality is, however, that it appears the federal government is attempting to reduce its costs on the backs of victims of flooding and fires, and this is unacceptable.

* (0920)

We have received the support of municipal organizations. In regular consultation with the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and MAUM they have told us they are unanimous in support of our position that the federal government return to a fair and reasonable and well-precedented arrangement whereby municipalities had more latitude in terms of how they managed in these disastrous circumstances. They have both passed, unanimously, resolutions to that effect and have forwarded these resolutions to federal officials. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities as well has passed a resolution in support of our position, and I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I am deeply saddened by the response or lack of response by our federal members of Parliament. They have taken the position that there has been no change in federal government practice. They have communicated that to me, and they have communicated it to Manitobans through letters to the editor and various publications around the province which state that their position is that no change has taken place in the federal interpretation of the disaster cost-sharing guidelines.

When that position was made clear, when the written position of the federal government was read last fall to the Union of Manitoba Municipalities gathering at the Westman Centennial Auditorium, representatives elected and accountable representatives from all across this province laughed because they know that the position of the federal government is one that is dramatically a departure from previous well-established arrangements that they have come to trust, and they too are deeply disheartened at the lack of support from elected members to Parliament from their areas.

Another side of this issue, and one that I have expressed in writing to the federal minister is something which I would wish to bring to the attention of our colleagues on the other side of the House and to you, Mr. Chairman, and that concerns the issue of evacuations. I feel a strong sense of urgency around this issue. We have fire conditions in northern Manitoba that are not radically different from last year, and last year, as members of the committee will know, there were major costs incurred as a consequence of fires in the north of our province.

When evacuations occur, Mr. Chairman, it is done only out of a sense of protecting the lives of the people in the affected area. When communities in our province are gracious enough to act as hosts for evacuated communities, we deeply appreciate the sacrifices that they make at the community level and that their citizens make, and I want to go on record as thanking those communities who have acted as hosts of evacuees in the past. But I must tell you that because of the changes in the federal government cost-sharing practice, we have a disparity, or an unfairness that exists now in terms of evacuees that deeply concerns me, and that is this: if a community was to be asked to host an evacuated aboriginal community, they would be fully compensated under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development policies. If, however, they were asked to host a non-native community that was evacuated, they would not be allowed under current federal interpretation to cost share, if they use their own staff, if they use their own machinery or equipment.

This is a ridiculous contradiction, a ridiculous situation to exist, because what it essentially does is it creates two classes of Manitobans, both equally threatened by the fires around their communities, and it creates a necessity in the minds of municipal officials, who are elected and accountable to their ratepayers, to consider the cost consequences of hosting these communities who are in danger.

If, for example, I use the situation in Portage la Prairie last year where Portage la Prairie was given less than two hours' notice of a desire to evacuate Gods Lake Narrows, and Gods Lake Narrows being in danger and close to a thousand people needing to be evacuated from that community, we needed the co-operation of another community to host those people. Portage la Prairie responded, and they responded with less than two hours' notice and said, yes we will help these people. They were evacuated to Portage la Prairie and the people of Portage la Prairie, volunteers many of them but many of them city personnel, worked effectively to provide a home for a vast number of people. When you consider that that is an increase of almost 10 percent in the population of the community, that was a tremendous undertaking.

Now the reality is that the City of Portage la Prairie knew, going into that undertaking, that its costs would be covered by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development . But now, Mr. Chairman, as it comes to light that the federal government is changing their practices under the disaster cost-sharing guidelines and disallowing the use of municipalities' staff, machinery, equipment and so on, which is often a considerable portion of the claim, what would Portage la Prairie say this year if they were asked to host a non-native community such as Leaf Rapids? What would they say? I cannot begin to tell you what they would say. That is not in my purview to say, but I can tell you that they would have to seriously consider what costs they would incur for their ratepayers if they were asked to host a non-native community.

So there is a contradiction here, and I have notified the federal minister. I have asked for a response over now close to two months ago, and I have yet to hear word back from David Collenette on this issue.

(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

Certainly, the minister has other issues that he is currently dealing with, and I gather from the lack of response to my particular issue that he may be preoccupied with those other issues. But the reality is that, of course, all members of this Legislature are deeply concerned and have as their primary concern the best interests of the people of our province, their safety and the protection of their property, and this issue I bring to the attention of my colleagues from the New Democratic Party because I know it is something that they will express a concern for. In particular, I know the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) has, in his community's experience, his community has acted as a host for evacuated communities and at times has been threatened with evacuation, as well. So these situations are very real ones, and I do not want to see a circumstance arise in our province where host communities are asked to incur costs when they are Good Samaritans and they are acting in good will, and they are acting as hosts for evacuees. They should be fairly compensated and fully compensated for so doing.

So I raise this issue with my colleagues in the committee as something I want them to be aware of, and I am hoping, very hopeful, that our federal members of Parliament will wake up to this issue and to the other issues I have raised in terms of cost-sharing and fairness and begin to truly try to represent the people of their constituencies to Ottawa, rather than representing Ottawa to their constituencies.

Mr. Chairman, these Estimates will stand on their own solid economic ground. I want to thank members of my department and staff, not only who are here today, but certainly all our staff throughout the department for the contribution that they have made not only to the functioning of our department but in the larger sense to the best interests of our fellow departments and the best interests of all Manitobans. I also want to thank them for the hospitality with which they have made my responsibilities as the minister of this department that much easier to perform and a pleasure to perform.

In closing, I am of the understanding, Mr. Chairman, through discussion with my friend the critic, the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), we will not be proceeding in the order of the Estimates specifically, but I am of the understanding we will be concluding in approximately two and a half hours time. Just for the benefit of staff, I would ask the member if we have agreement on an approximate time frame today.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. We thank the Minister of Government Services for those comments. Does the official opposition critic, the honourable member for Elmwood, have an opening statement?

* (0930)

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Given the time frame that we are operating under today with only two and a half hours to go to cover the Estimates of this department and the possibility of other colleagues of mine coming forward to ask questions in other areas such as disaster assistance and EMO, I will dispense with making an opening statement so that we can proceed to ask questions in this department.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the critic from the official opposition for those remarks. Under the Manitoba practice, debate of the Minister's Salary is traditionally the last item to be considered for the Estimates of the department. Accordingly, we shall defer consideration of this item and now proceed with the consideration of the next line. Before we do that, we invite the minister's staff to join us at the table, and we ask that the minister introduce his staff present.

Mr. Pallister: We have joining us at this time Deputy Minister Hugh Eliasson, and director, assistant deputy minister of Administration and Finance, Bryan McTaggart. Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the minister. We will now proceed to line 8.1. Administration (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits, page 65.

Mr. Maloway: I believe it is the will of the committee to allow us the flexibility to ask questions anywhere within the Estimates rather than following point by point, or section by section.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I am told that is the wish of the committee and that that has been discussed already.

Mr. Maloway: I would like to begin by asking the minister some questions regarding the riots, about the riot situation at Headingley. Now the Attorney General (Mrs. Vodrey) and the minister were on the scene shortly after the riot, I believe, and it was the Attorney General who made quite a production of the fact that this damage was going to be cleaned up by the prisoners. I do not know where the minister sat on this issue at the time. I understand he was there with her, although he was not on the national news with her. I would like to ask him whether he was aware at that time of the limitations as to how much of this damage could be cleaned up by the prisoners.

Mr. Pallister: I think every Manitoban was disgusted by the events that occurred at Headingley facility, and certainly in touring the facility on the Saturday following the riot, I have not been exposed personally to that kind of human degradation and violence in a direct way as I was at that time. The behaviour of those men in that circumstance is just totally unacceptable of course to all of us, all members of this House, but certainly all Manitobans, and the manner of disrespect in which they treated one another and certainly in which they treated the staff at the facility was something that was abhorrent to me personally, and I know to the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey).

I think, very likely, in the larger part, I would say that most people in Manitoba, in a general sense at least, would agree with the idea we were all raised, I think, with certain fundamental truths, one of those being that if you make a mess you should clean it up. I think that was probably the basic premise and the basic assumption which was at work in my mind at that time, and I cannot speak of course for the Minister of Justice, but I expect it would be common sense to want to see reparations done by those who caused the damage. That is an understandable thing, and I think that is quite honourable, quite defensible.

The member asked the question, though, and I want to answer that question directly about, did I know at the time what limitations would be placed on the inmates' ability, I believe, to do cleanup? You know, I think that is a difficult question to answer. I suppose one often approaches issues in an ideological way. I hear that frequently in comments from members on the other side of the House. I think the purity of an idea, though, is often interfered with by the realities of life, and this is a good example of that. The realities of the inmates who did the crime of damaging the facility doing the repairs are--in retrospect, there are very real obstacles to that, some of them understandable and acceptable to me and some of them questionable, but nevertheless they are there, and they are unfortunately in the way of mitigating costs to Manitoba taxpayers who are in part at least the victims of this kind of event.

When Manitoba taxpayers are asked to pay for the repairs to a facility that they had already provided to these convicts as a consequence of their criminal activity, they are victimized not only by the crimes of the individuals but they are victimized by absorbing the costs of housing those inmates and, thirdly, they are victimized by the reparation costs that are made necessary by the disrespectful conduct of those inmates who were in that facility. They are victimized yet again, and I think every one of us would like to work from the general assumption that victims of crime should be our first concern, and our first concern in this instance, apart from those immediately victimized as a result of violent behaviour such as the staff there, would be to reduce and mitigate the damage done to Manitoba taxpayers as a consequence of this kind of behaviour.

That, I think, was what was in the heart of the Justice minister and I know in my heart at the time, and it remains there. As a minister in charge of the facility itself as far as the physical plant operation is concerned, I will endeavour to have the inmates do whatever possible work they can do to reduce the costs that the taxpayer would have to absorb. If we can do that effectively, we will continue to make our efforts in that direction. Then I think the taxpayers in Manitoba will get what they deserve in the sense of fair treatment from the government and from our department.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, would the minister agree in retrospect then that perhaps it was a mistake to have promised, to have made the promise, that the prisoners would do the cleanup, when in fact it could not be done?

Mr. Pallister: No, I do not think I would agree with that.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, well, you know here we have the problem. We have a case of the minister and his colleague basically misleading the taxpayers, misleading the public, grabbing an opportunity to make some Brownie points with the public, saying something that the public wants to see done and then having to double-clutch and backtrack very shortly thereafter to the point where it has actually become a farce. There has been no cleanup by any prisoners at the prison. There was no action on the part of the prisoners in the weeks after the riot to clean up anything. Now, is that, or is that not a false promise on the part of the minister and his colleague the Attorney General?

Mr. Pallister: Well, I will respond in a couple of ways to the member, and I am surprised at his comments, frankly. In the first instance, as far as attention grabbing, it is my understanding that the member's own colleague, the critic for Justice, the member for, is it St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh)?--was part of a briefing that the RCMP conducted, of which one of the aspects of that briefing was that during the riot it would be advisable to abstain from media contact out of a fear, I think legitimately, that the RCMP had that--

* (0940)

Point of Order

Mr. Maloway: On a point of order, I believe our critic for the Justice department, Mr. Mackintosh, the member for St. Johns, has debated this abundantly in the department Estimates and he has shown without a doubt that there was no agreement in place.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Elmwood does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Mr. Pallister: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, I think the member alludes to attention grabbing, and I think it is something that he does recognize that the conduct of his critic during the Headingley riot, during the riot itself, in terms of going to the media, seeking, in fact, media attention, would be something which I would hope he would characterize as a mistake, as a tremendous error in judgment, something that I would say--he uses the phrase “attention grabbing,” and I would say that would very adequately describe some aspects of the behaviour of the critic, the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), in this instance. There are other words that would describe this behaviour as well that I will not use, Mr. Chairman, because I know they would disturb you.

But the reality is that type of thing shows a deep disrespect for the people whose lives were in danger at that point in time and a deep disrespect for the families of the inmates, of the guards who were working, of the staff who were working onsite, and of the RCMP officers that were involved in that riot. Tremendously dangerous and ill-advised behaviour on the part of the member, and when he talks of attention grabbing, there is no question that that phrase would adequately describe, at least in this forum, I think, the behaviour of the member for St. Johns.

As far as his statement that no work has been done by inmates of Headingley, that is an error in fact, and it is unfortunate that he would not be aware of that. Certainly, I am willing to have my department make available to him more detailed information on the work that the inmates have done. The reality is that inmate crews have, to date, or will be washing down cell blocks on each of the levels. I recently toured the facility and observed the actual work that the inmates have been engaged in, initially removing restoration and construction dust, preparing areas for painting, actually having done painting of the cells, the range walkway areas, and, in speaking to the superintendent of the facility, he outlined to me further plans for inmate involvement in final painting of corridors, common areas, repair and restoration of salvageable furniture, millwork.

I should mention to the member, by the way, that these are things that were not undertaken, to our knowledge, by any other facility that has been victimized by this kind of behaviour in the past. This is an innovative and aggressive pursuit, a change in policy, if you will, that is being pursued, and the reality is that inmate labour will mitigate the cost to the taxpayer. The member alludes to initial cleanup; initial cleanup was not, as he knows, done by inmates. There were good reasons for that, and I think the member's colleagues have actually, if I am not mistaken, raised some of those in the House: the danger posed to the inmates, the danger posed to guards because of the inmates' exposure to certain items which could be used as weapons. These types of things are legitimate concerns, and the safety, of course, of the guards and staff there is of concern to our government, as is the safety of the inmates who are there a concern to us. So those were legitimate reasons, and I am sure the member is not advocating that in retrospect the inmates themselves would be asked to do retributive work that would endanger them or endanger the staff just out of a sense of trying to appear to be doing something with the inmates.

What we are trying to do is have the inmates provide labour that is appropriate and reasonable, given the circumstances and given the reality that we have to be concerned with the safety of those inmates themselves, of those staff that are at the facility. I should mention also that the inmates will be involved in repairing and restoring any furniture that is salvageable, millwork, these types of things, repair of the landscape damage that was caused because of the riot itself, because of the emergency vehicles, construction vehicles that were on the property.

The scope of work is perhaps, part of me says, it is too bad that we could not mitigate all of these costs to the taxpayer, that 100 percent of this damage and these costs could not be born by the people who caused the problem, and I think the member would agree that that is too bad that we cannot do that. But the reality is we have to have the facility ready to house inmates, and we have to have it ready fairly quickly, and we want to do that and at the same time mitigate, wherever reasonable, the costs to the taxpayer, lessen those costs. That is what we are doing in a real way, and I think that is a worthwhile and honourable endeavour on our part. Our department is co-operating with other officials in government departments, co-operating with the staff at the facility and working together to look for every opportunity to use the inmate labour that is there, very little of which, frankly, is skilled enough to do some of the major work that is required, but wherever possible use that inmate labour in a way that will reduce the costs to the taxpayers of Manitoba. I would hope the member would encourage and support that rather than trying to find fault in that particular area.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, could the minister give us an idea of the type of work that the inmates normally do over the course of the time they are in the prison? What is the type of work they would normally do when there is no riot?

Mr. Pallister: I hope the member is not implying that a riot is a make-work project for inmates. I am afraid that could be derived from his statement. The reality is that it is the scope of the work that is being done that is the real issue here. When we have a situation like this, as the member knows full well, this without question is the worst riot in the history of the province. It is something that has never occurred before. It is unprecedented. The level of work that is required to repair that facility far exceeds anything that has ever been required in the past in terms of the capital investment to the facility itself, apart from the initial construction which I suppose in present value dollars would have been more expensive than these repairs, but that is about the only thing that would be of a larger cost undertaking. So, once again, though the member is trying to make the point that, yes, these gentlemen paint sometimes anyway, the reality is that in this instance, with the magnitude of the painting that is required, if we can utilize inmate labour to paint the whole facility, which is essentially--in a large part that facility was gutted--and so to have the inmates do the painting on that scale, it has never been done before. The inmates have never been involved in a project of that magnitude.

They are involved now in a large part wherever possible, and that will increase, in fact, as more numbers return to the facility itself. I am told that there are inmates, I think, being returned to the facility today, and that those inmates will also be engaged in doing repairs. You know, the member takes the position, perhaps not the member but some of his colleagues do take the position that the work that has been done to date is trivial. But the member has to recognize there are ongoing activities at that facility in terms of work that the inmates do that have to be continued, and there are not big numbers of inmates at the facility right now because it is not suitable for occupation. As the numbers increase and as more inmates return to the facility, more will be able to engage in restoration work and more will be expected to do just that. I expect to see the cost savings to the taxpayers increase as a consequence of that fact.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, will the minister confirm that the prisoners at this facility have always been involved in painting projects? They have always been involved in removing dust and washing cell blocks, the furniture salvage. This would be a normal type of activity for the prisoners. The fact of the matter is that the ministers collectively seized an opportunity here and tremendously misrepresented what in fact could be done, and I do not hold this minister as responsible as the Attorney General. I make that very clear from the beginning. It was not this minister that I saw on national TV promising that the prisoners would be put to work immediately to clean up the damage, and that is what she promised. Now, does the minister stand by the Attorney General on this matter? I do not think he does.

* (0950)

Mr. Pallister: I would say that, frankly, anyone who supports the idea of reducing costs to the taxpayers of this promise, I will stand with them. It is very easy for the member to sit back and be critical of that kind of intention on the part of the Attorney General, but I do not see that as being something that I would applaud.

Behaviour like that is--it is easy to criticize, as the member knows. It takes no skill. I have been fortunate to travel a bit and have been to 22 different countries in the world now and toured each of them fairly extensively, and I have yet to see the statue of a critic anywhere, because it just takes no intelligence at all. The reality is that the member's intention and mine, and I would hope that members opposite would see the genuine desire here, is to mitigate the costs to the taxpayers of this province. The reality is that that is occurring every time that an inmate provides labour as opposed to contracting it out to someone outside of the facility.

Given members' recent opposition to contracting out services in another department of this government, I would hope they would support our attempts to use services inside the facility as opposed to contracting out in this instance as well.

Mr. Maloway: What steps are the minister and this government taking to prevent future riots of this type?

Mr. Pallister: Well, I think that question is probably a little bit better put in another department than this one, but I suppose we could talk about some of the improvements that we are doing on the capital side--a number of improvements to the facility, given the opportunity that this unfortunate event has created for us to make some improvements in terms of the safety features around the facility. I think we could probably allude to some of that.

We are installing an electro-mechanical locking system. Some of this, by the way, I should mention to the member, and this is something you may not be aware of, but some of these projects had already been underway at the time of the riot. So we are just basically using the opportunity that is presented to us here because of the riot itself to move these projects along, you know, aggressively. Range dividers are being installed. Improvements to the guards' posts, stations--I am not sure if I am using the correct terminology for the member, and I apologize if I am not. Strengthening internal doors. Hardening conduit.

There is an interesting thing that, as I was touring the facility the other day, was brought to my attention. Apparently, as the pipes go between floors, inmates will frequently create a space around those pipes and do what is called kiting, flying kites to one another on different levels. So, for example, if the guards are doing an inspection on one level, the inmates on that level will float a kite down to the next level, let the fellows downstairs know that the guards are coming. So we are using the opportunity to seal up some of the rat holes in the facility, if you will, and make security more effective in that respect.

But, of course, as the member would expect, I would confine my remarks to the physical plan improvements because that is in the purview of this department. There are other examples if the member is interested in pursuing this.

Mr. Maloway: I would like to ask some questions about the Fleet Vehicles SOA and the program that the government has been involved in.

Mr. Pallister: Mr. Chairman, we are being joined by Mr. Dennis Ducharme, who is just a pretty average golfer, and is also the Chief Operating Officer of the Fleet Vehicles special operating agency.

Mr. Maloway: I would like to ask the minister initially whether he or the government has had any offers or proposals for the purchase or takeover of the Fleet Vehicles Agency.

Mr. Pallister: I am sorry. Could the member repeat that question?

Mr. Maloway: We have always taken the position that these special operating agencies were potentially just a step along the way to eventual privatization, and I am wondering at the outset whether the minister could confirm that there have been any representations made to him or the government regarding possible private involvement in that operating agency, whether a complete takeover or a winding down of the agency in favour of private sector activity?

Mr. Pallister: Just to back up for a second. The member may be aware that with the development in Manitoba, aggressive development of special operating agencies, we have seen an attempt on the part of this government to establish, let us say, a small business mentality or philosophy within government departments, initially, of course, Fleet Vehicles being our first SOA. The intention was to try to improve cost accountability, to try to improve service levels, and certainly I think that the results speak for themselves in terms of the positive response certainly by the management staff to the challenges and a positive response in terms of the degree of client satisfaction that has been derived from those changes.

The objective of all our special operating agencies is essentially, I guess, to be the service provider of choice to our customers and, though our customers are not in the private sector, our customers are other publicly funded agencies or other departments of our own government, nevertheless, the principles of supplying customer satisfaction are the same and the desire to do the best possible job we can remains the same.

The member asks about selling the Fleet Vehicles Agency. I guess he should recognize that optionality in terms of our customers having the opportunity to gather the same or similar services elsewhere is a reality now. Certainly for the seasonal vehicles, that optionality has existed in recent months and, though there have not been examples that I could give the member where government departments have chosen to use other providers, they do have that option. And I think the reality of optionality is that it makes us aware in our department of the compelling need to be competitive in what it is that we do in terms of quality of service, in terms of price of service and so on to do our very utmost to make sure our customers are satisfied and, though they would have the option to deal with others, choose to deal with us.

Optionality for long-term leases would come into play this fall, and perhaps at a subsequent Estimates discussion we would be able to better evaluate what degree of private sector involvement was occurring, if any, in terms of supplying the services that we now supply through the Fleet Vehicles Agency.

Mr. Maloway: The minister is making reference now to optionality, and he said it is a recent development, and then he made some reference to it beginning in the fall. I would like the minister to be a little more specific about when this new concept got approved and just where it stands right now. Was there a regulation change to allow this or did the minister just wake up one morning and decide that this was a new and good idea?

Mr. Pallister: There was an evaluation done of the Fleet Vehicles Agency after three years of performance. Being the sort of standard bearer for the special operating agency, it has certainly been subject to a great degree of evaluation and assessment over that three-year period, so I do not want the member to assume that that was the only evaluation that was done of the Fleet Vehicles Agency, but there was a very detailed assessment of the performance of the agency done. From that assessment, came the recommendation that optionality would come into play. I was not as specific as the member would like, I gather, from my previous comments. I will say that since April of this year, optionality for the seasonal vehicles came into play, and I was referring to, when I said August of this year, the longer-term leases.

* (1000)

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, would the minister agree to provide for us a copy of this evaluation?

Mr. Pallister: We could provide that to the member, certainly.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, when might that happen?

Mr. Pallister: When it might happen is when we have a copy made available to us. I cannot assume, however, that would happen this morning, but we can endeavour to make it available to the member before I become a father again.

Mr. Maloway: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, but at the rate that process is dragging out, it could be an awfully long time. I will say at the outset that in my ten years here, this minister, of all the ministers I have dealt with, certainly probably has been the best in terms of getting back with information. There have been some pretty terrible horror stories of ministers promising things and then just conveniently forgetting to provide the information and a whole year or more would pass, hoping, of course, that I would forget. That is a common tactic.

Point of Order

Mr. Pallister: Just on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think it probably is illustrative of how badly I need a compliment that that would actually touch me, that the member would compliment me, but I do not think it is appropriate to heap criticism on any predecessor of mine as a consequence of the openness of this current department's policies.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The minister does not have a point of order.

* * *

Mr. Maloway: I just wanted the assurance of the minister that this particular study would be provided within the next day or two. That is really all I am looking for.

Mr. Pallister: I believe I have made something along the lines of a commitment in that regard.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, can the minister then tell us who performed this evaluation? What were the parameters? How long did it take, and what did it cost?

Mr. Pallister: I will back up just a little for the edification of the member and say that the intent of this evaluation was to address long-term strategic issues to help guide the agency through its further phases of development and maximize performance levels. The main objectives were to evaluate Fleet Vehicles' effectiveness since their inception, to assess the effectiveness of the special operating agency reforms as they apply to Fleet Vehicles Agency, to review strategic issues critical to Fleet Vehicles' long-term success, and to recommend future direction for the agency. The evaluation was conducted by the Department of Finance's internal audit group under the direction of a steering committee which had representation from the Treasury Board Secretariat, the agency itself and the agency's advisory board. Attributes from the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation's effectiveness framework were used as a focus for the evaluation. This review--and the member will be provided with a copy which will provide him with more detail than I will here--determined that the SOA initiative had resulted in a more businesslike operation that concentrates on client service, which I think is a very, very complimentary observation and a tribute to this government's foresight in terms of its structural approach to managing the services of not only this department but of other services within government.

This specific audit group determined that the agency is managing the ground transportation needs of government in an economical manner and that it has met many of the expectations placed on it.

I would also observe that staff should be commended for the degree of success. Any degree of success that we have had has only been as a result of the staff. Their attitudes to these changes in structure and the real changes that have occurred within the fleet vehicle operation have been positive ones overall and certainly very integral to any success that we have or will experience in future.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, how is this decision communicated to the people involved? Was a memo sent out or a letter sent out telling the people that they could take leases out on their own?

Mr. Pallister: The member is correct in his, I believe, insinuation that, yes, each department was notified of the optionality. This was something that is not a new thing. Any of the staff in the various departments were aware from the inception of the Fleet Vehicles Agency as a special operating agency that it was the intention to move to a situation where optionality would in fact exist. So it is not, frankly, a new development, but in terms of communicating the availability of optionality to those departments who utilize the services of our Fleet Vehicles Agency it was communicated to each of those departments.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, was a similar letter then sent to the industry who would, obviously, have an interest in providing quotations for this business?

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Pallister: Mr. Chairman, the industry, in terms of the industry's input, had representatives who provided input into the process of developing a tender which was in partnership with the Purchasing branch developed which could be utilized by those client departments that wished to tender out services. So the industry was not only aware of the availability of optionality and the potential benefits that could be derived to them, but it was also involved in creating a structure whereby they could be involved and which would allow client departments to effectively prepare their tender for services.

Mr. Maloway: Could the minister endeavour then, when he provides us a copy of the study that was done, to also include any notices to the industry, or notices to the current clients of the Fleet Vehicles Agency? In other words, presumably there is a letter to each group there, and I would just ask him to include that with the evaluation that was done, a copy of the letter.

Mr. Pallister: Yes, we certainly will provide that information to the member for Elmwood.

Mr. Maloway: Since this program then has just become effective for seasonal vehicles in April, presumably April 1--by now it is almost two months--how many of the current Fleet Vehicles Agency customers have in fact leased private vehicles, or vehicles from private companies?

Mr. Pallister: For short-term needs, such as a day or two, departments have occasionally used vehicle rental companies when the agency was unable to supply the type of vehicle required, or when the agency's rate was higher, which I think is understandable. This option, however, is not new. This option has always been available to departments.

For seasonal needs, here we say three to five months, departments were given the ability this year to solicit bids, and at this point in time each of our customers has chosen to continue doing business with our Fleet Vehicles Agency. At this point in time, none of our customers has left us for a competitor.

Mr. Maloway: So the retention rate at this point is 100 percent, but it is possible--or well, certainly, it is more than possible--that we are going to lose some of your customers over the next year.

Mr. Pallister: Well, that is speculative.

An Honourable Member: Of course.

* (1010)

Mr. Pallister: I would say that is probably less likely than that the member's political party would lose representation after the next election.

Mr. Maloway: I read over the review of the Fleet Vehicles Agency, and I would like to know the list of the customers. I guess, I would like to know whether Manitoba Hydro, for example, is a customer of the Fleet Vehicles Agency.

Mr. Pallister: In a small way, Manitoba Hydro, the example the member asked about, is a customer of our department. We do some maintenance work for them, but not in terms of providing lease services to them at this point in time. Though the member should know that our Fleet Vehicles Agency, as with other of our special operating agencies, is becoming more, perhaps a little more aggressive than may have been the case in the past in terms of marketing our services to other agencies, particularly of course Crown corporations, and the MASH sector, municipal, academic, social services, and health sector as an example of that.

So that the member is probably correct if I interpret his question correctly. He is suggesting that we may be developing new customers in the future, and I think that maybe is a good assumption on his part.

Mr. Maloway: Well, with that in mind then, has the number of vehicles decreased or has it increased from last year?

Mr. Pallister: Year over year, in answer to the member's question, total vehicle size of our fleet is largely unchanged. Within that, however, there are some changes of a minor nature, and those would involve the number of seasonal vehicles, which has somewhat increased, and the number of total long-term lease, I do not know if I am using the correct phrase here, but permanent-assignment vehicles, which is down somewhat, but the two have largely offset one another, so that the total size of the fleet is 2,242 vehicles, both last year and projected for this year's fleet size as well.

The one caveat I guess I would add to that is the potential which the member alluded to before for new clients, and if we were to, for example, take on a new client, then there may be the need for additional fleet vehicles to be brought in to therefore increase our fleet size above what we project.

Mr. Maloway: I would like to ask the minister about the arrangements that he has for providing fuel for the fleet. There is a provincial government garage. It does purchase gasoline for use of the fleet. I would like to ask him, what has happened to his fuel costs over the past year relative to what they were the previous year? Does he have any stats on that?

Mr. Pallister: Yes. In terms of the cost of fuel itself, as the member may be aware, that is something that has gone up over the past year so that the actual cost of fuel, in the short answer to his question, would be, yes, there has been an increase in the cost of fuel. But I think that just to stop my answer there might create a bit of an inaccuracy, and I want to clarify a couple of things. First of all, the fleet does not purchase fuel per se for its customers. Although it does operate an above-ground storage tank, that is essentially just for the fuelling of vehicles in transit that have come over for servicing or, for example, pool vehicles and so on but, in terms of the actual fuel that is purchased, the most significant amounts of fuel are purchased by the operators of those vehicles, the lessees of the vehicles, who would purchase them from the agency they chose to use.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

We do have discount arrangements with various fuel companies, with all the major fuel companies. I do not have those numbers right here, but I am sure we could get those numbers. Discounts range from 4 to 6 percent depending on the specific company, but I guess the larger issue in terms of fuel costs and how we are trying to contain those fuel costs is really the key here. I would say that the fleet has endeavoured to reduce the costs of fuel purchases made necessary by the operation of the fleet in a number of ways.

First, and most obviously, the size of the fleet itself has been reduced by about 500 vehicles; therefore, of course, there is considerable reduction as a consequence of that. There are other examples I could give the member of improvements in terms of fuel, having the right vehicle for the job. I will read some examples from a recent Fleet Flash, which is a communications information vehicle that our SOA uses with its customers to inform them of various issues relevant to the operation of their vehicles and related topics. We can assist our clients in selecting the right vehicle, given an understanding of what their requirements are for that vehicle, to do many things, but one of those certainly is to attempt to reduce the fuel costs that they may incur, and to extend, of course, the life of the vehicle by making sure it is used in the most appropriate manner for the purposes intended.

* (1020)

We also promote the use of pooled vehicles within and among departments, and the basic question, I guess, is, why have three vehicles if we can get away with two? This is one of the benefits of the cost recovery approach that we are using with our SOAs, that these questions are being asked by the departments before they choose to incur the cost. As well, we can supply what are called exception reports, which assist departments in monitoring any abnormal fuel consumption, and we can also as well, for the interests of the member, provide information on poor vehicle condition or poor driving habits. Those things can be identified, and therefore we can reduce fuel consumption in that manner.

We encourage the use of Mohawk gasoline. I believe I may be correct in this that Mohawk offers us the best discount as well, and we encourage the use of, of course, ethanol-added fuel. As well, the preventative maintenance program that Fleet Vehicles administers will assist in keeping vehicles well maintained. We encourage the use of mesh tailgates, wherever possible, and will reduce drag on the vehicles. There are other examples, but I think basically the member raises a good question. We are trying to reduce fuel consumption. Clearly reducing the size of the fleet is an important aspect of that, but there are other initiatives that the Fleet Vehicles Agency is pursuing in an effort to be, of course, the agency of choice and the service provider of choice for its customers.

Mr. Maloway: Well, then, what sort of volumes and what sort of prices does the government pay right now for the gas that it stores in the above-ground tanks down at the provincial garage? I am trying to get a handle on whether or not the--I suppose I do not have a problem if the discounts afford a 6 percent means that the government is paying no more at local pumps than it is at a bulk rate down at the central garage, then we do not have any problem with that; but, if we are paying extraordinarily high prices at the pumps and we have an exceptionally low price out here at the garage, then we would have to take a look at that.

Mr. Pallister: Surely the member is not suggesting that government employees in Thompson drive down to fill up their tank.

Mr. Maloway: No, I am not suggesting that.

Mr. Pallister: Okay. I just wanted to be clear on that.

Just to continue in the fine tradition that the member and I have established of openness and compliance with his request, I will share with him the numbers at the risk of him misunderstanding and abusing the numbers that I give him.

The reality is that we do get a bulk fuel price for the above-ground fuel that we provide, which just the cost of the fuel per litre is approximately 45 cents. Now, when one compares that to, you know, approximately 60 cents at the tank for what he and I would pay on our own vehicles, that is a good value, there is no question. The price per litre varies among the major suppliers, and I will not propose to bore the member with too much explicit detail unless he requests that, but suffice it to say that our average price per litre is around 53 cents, that our leaseholders, if you will, pay, after the discount, retail.

Now, on the surface of it, the member may wish to pursue the idea that it would make sense for us to have all our, wherever possible, of course, within the city of Winnipeg as an example. He may wish to put forward the idea that our leased vehicles should be fuelled up at the Government Services operation for 45 cents. But the reality is that as the member needs to be aware, one has to factor in the costs of doing that over and above the cost of the fuel itself. The reality is, it would cost several hundred thousand dollars, I speculate here, for additional above-ground storage to be built. It would cost additional taxpayers' dollars to provide for the staff support necessary to provide that service. It would cost additional taxpayers' dollars to have the vehicles required to be transported or moved from the site where they were to be used in the normal operation, day-to-day performance of their duties, that the particular leaseholder would be performing. There would be the time factor in terms of them having to drive from the area where they are normally performing a function on behalf of the taxpayers of Manitoba to the Fleet Vehicle Agency itself. When one factors in all those considerations, I think the member can see that the differential, although on the surface we are talking about approximately eight cents a litre, would very quickly get eaten up with the additional costs of making this fuel available at the site itself.

* (1030)

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, where does the minister get the bulk supplies that the government gets at around 45 cents? What refiner supplies it?

Mr. Pallister: The current successful tender was Federated Co-op, but we tender, of course, annually in an effort to reduce the price.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, which refinery does the fuel come from?

Mr. Pallister: I am not aware of that.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister then to check that out because it is possible that Federated would be getting it out of the Regina refinery, but there are two here, as you know, Shell in St. Boniface and Imperial, but I would be interested in knowing, having a bit of an interest in this area, just where they get this. Nothing would surprise me in the gasoline business.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps a friendly suggestion to the minister: I do understand his concern here about larger tanks being required and so on, but that is a considerable saving, I would think. Based on the consumption that the government is paying for right now, if it were to run its entire fuel costs at 45 cents a litre, how big of a saving would it be to the government? How much would the taxpayers be saving?

Mr. Pallister: Given the mitigating factors, which are very real ones, as I was pointing out to the member earlier, the reality being also that about 80 percent of our fuel consumption is outside of the city of Winnipeg. The savings would be minimal at best if in fact there were savings, and I would speculate that there may not be. So it is very difficult to answer a question about savings when there may not be any.

Mr. Maloway: Would the minister then endeavour to perhaps send a memo out or, the next time they send a memo out to the customers, make the suggestion that, where possible, if they are driving by the government's garage, they gas up there, or perhaps just point out to them that there is an 8-cent-a-litre saving to the government to gas up there, and let the common sense of the civil servant prevail, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Pallister: I appreciate the member's positive suggestion. I can tell him that we are acting on that now and have in the past. We have encouraged the vehicle co-ordinators to advise each of their drivers of the availability of the fuel at a reduced price and do encourage in that way, but there is always a danger, I think, in terms of the area of customer service, to just make this general observation, in trying to direct your customers too aggressively. The reality is that they have been made aware of the potential savings, but, at the same time, we want to be the agent of choice and, given optionality and the reality of optionality, do not want to browbeat our customers for fear that they might choose to deal with someone who chooses not to.

Mr. Maloway: I would like to get into an area now that the minister and I have previously talked about, and that is the area of alternative fuel vehicles. The minister was endeavouring to get me a copy of an assessment that he has on a program that was run a number of years ago with the conversion of a number of Renault 12s in the '70s to electric use. The provincial government did buy some of these vehicles, as I recall, from Minneapolis, and I remember the day they paraded them around the Legislative Building here, back in '73. We thought that was a great new day for fuel savings and getting off gasoline. I think that is like 25 years ago, and we are still not there. So I recognize that this program has been a long time coming, but we know that there are some movements being made right now. So does the minister have that report?

Mr. Pallister: I can provide the member with a little bit of background. I think, just in terms of clarifying some of the dates and so on, in 1976, the province purchased seven electric vehicles from Electric Vehicle Associates of Parma, Ohio, and one electric van from the Tronic Truck Corporation of Boyertown, Pennsylvania. The vehicles were purchased on an experimental basis, with the Department of Government Services testing three sedans and the van, and the Manitoba Telephone System testing one sedan, and Manitoba Hydro testing the remaining three sedans. Tests were conducted over a two-year period, and the results were disappointing. For example, the vehicles did not measure up to their claim of 50 to 60 miles travel per battery charge. The warranties were not honoured by the suppliers. The heating systems did not function properly, given our climate. By the way, the heating systems operated on gasoline, and they could only produce minimal heat. So I think the member can see, even if the batteries had recharged, the drivers would have had to stop to recharge themselves, given the minimal heat in the vehicles. The battery systems method of recharging was poorly developed, which directly affected the limited distance per charge, and the vehicles eventually became inoperable and were taken out of service. Five of the sedans were disposed of by public auction in December of 1979, and the van was disposed of by public tender in June of 1980. The remaining two sedans were donated to the University of Manitoba engineering facility in February of 1981. Since that time, Fleet Vehicles is aware of some advances that have been made in electric vehicle availability and technology, and they are endeavouring on an ongoing basis to keep abreast of developmental changes in this area.

But I think the member can tell, very likely, just by looking around the streets of this city that, unfortunately, the advent of electric vehicles has not been something that we might have hoped it would have been 20 years ago, given the lack of electric vehicles flying around the city.

Mr. Maloway: Well, I thank the minister for that report, and if he could provide me a copy of that document too, that would be fine. Things have changed, thank goodness, over the last 20 years, and we have got to the point now where in fact we have Ford, Toyota, and Honda, all are planning production models next year. GM, in fact, is coming out with their model as early as, I believe, August of this year, their first EV, with a truck to be available beginning of next year.

So obviously when the major auto manufacturers make a commitment such as this, I mean, what you have seen here is an enormous amount of money having been spent, at least for two years now with GM, enormous amounts of money being spent developing the product, and they have actually built the production lines. I believe the GM model is being built in I think it is Lansing, Michigan, and, as with any other new technology, there are certainly developmental problems. I can appreciate that, but there are also opportunities. There are opportunities for farsighted governments and quick moving operators to get in on the ground floor, and that is exactly what is happening here.

For example, these vehicles have been tested now in a number of cities in the United States. I can provide copies of the locations, but in Canada it has been in B.C. The government of B.C. moved very quickly in this area and they managed to convince GM to test five vehicles starting this summer in B.C., and they have an agreement, GM has got an agreement with B.C. Hydro.

So given that Manitoba has the Ford testing centre up in Thompson and given that if we, you know, if we do not move on this then maybe Saskatchewan will or Ontario or somebody else, I am just wondering whether the minister could work with the other ministers, I, T and T and Highways and so on, to approach the remaining car companies and make an effort to tie down as much of this new potential as possible because, once again, GM is committed to B.C. for the test, but Ford, and I do not know what Toyota and Honda are doing, but certainly I think that the government should be approaching these companies and offering testing facilities in Thompson. The mayor of Thompson is very interested. The minister probably knows this. There is some activity going on at the cabinet level, I believe, in Manitoba to try to expand the testing centre up in Thompson to not only include Ford but to include other manufacturers because, you know, there tends to be when you have one the others come along.

So there is a real opportunity here because emission standards both in B.C. and in California have mandated that certainly over the next five years it is not a question of if you are going to see these vehicles on the roads, they are going to be there. It is something that has to be done.

Now, I know these car companies are very interested in a fleet the size of which we are talking about here. Two thousand cars is exactly the size that they are looking for. I have talked to GM already, I have talked to Ford, and they certainly are interested in fleets of the 2,000 range. So if the minister would, you know, endeavour to look into this a little more, the opportunities are there. There are people in the province here who are interested in developing components, small companies are interested in developing components for these vehicles, and if we start now we may be able to get in on the ground floor of this, what promises to be quite an exciting new industry.

Mr. Pallister: I appreciate the member's sincerity in this issue. I think he raises some good points in terms of, you know, the potential for drawing economic development through research projects and so on to our province. I think the questions that, of course, from the standpoint of a fleet vehicle agency such as we are talking about here today, the questions that we have to answer in terms of the short term at least are, is this really an opportunity for improvements in the level of our service, is this an opportunity for us to be of better service at lower cost to our customers, and so on and so forth.

The issues of research aside, at this point in time, though, of course, on an ongoing basis our Fleet Vehicles Agency management is consulting with fleet representatives from various companies and, as a result of the member's questions today, will I am sure endeavour to do additional research. I do know as a result of the member's earlier enquiry that they have done certainly some research on this issue already.

Just for the interest of the member, I think it is, he points out that a number of companies have made these vehicles available or they will be available to the public. But in terms of our purchasing them for our fleet, he should know, for example, that the General Motors electric truck that will be the first one off the mark I believe in the '97 model year--the member for Elmwood may be correct in saying available this fall--

Mr. Maloway: The car is this fall and the truck is next, due in February.

* (1040)

Mr. Pallister: Okay. In any case, the promotional material from General Motors may lead us to some concerns about the relevance of that particular vehicle for our fleet for a couple of reasons. First of all, the truck has a driving range, it says in the promotional material--given the background information I have given the member I think that he can understand our concern about the promotional material not necessarily accurately reflecting the reality in terms of the vehicle. Not to question any of our suppliers, but the reality is that, the truth is that sometimes the material overstates to some degree at least the potential for use of the products that the promotional material is trying to put forward.

In any case, this particular truck has a driving range of 40 miles in the city, according to the promotional material, and 45 miles on the highway. Now, the member knows, I mean, given our reality in this province, that could be a difficulty. The second difficulty is, yes, you can recharge the system, but according to promotional material, it takes two and a half hours at 70 degrees Fahrenheit. You can see we can carry this one on to extremes, but I think you can see the difficulties there. Now those are similar claims to the claims that were made 20 years ago, frankly, in the promotional material at that time.

Obviously, it does not seem practical to have our government vehicles, and our drivers, stopping every 40 to 45 miles and then spending two and a half hours waiting for the batteries to recharge; that would be difficult, I think. Certainly, when these vehicles have been developed to the point where they could be economically used in a fleet operation, our agency, I am sure, will be approaching the client departments regarding the potential for their use.

The other aspect, of course, and this is not to cast aspersions to the member for his suggestion at all; I do not want that to be misinterpreted. The member is looking at an innovative idea and we all encourage that kind of thinking, but the reality on this one is that, for example, with the prices that we have been quoted thus far on GM's electric truck, we are talking about approximately $45,000 for that truck. Right now, for a comparable half-ton, our supplier this year, I believe, was Ford and the cost of the vehicle was about $15,000. So in a cost-conscious operation, and I think we are seeing a greater degree of cost-consciousness across this country in public agencies all the time, it is a difficult suggestion for me to commit to acting on.

But part of the suggestion that of the research and additional research, certainly that we can do, and additional research that we might be able to attract to our province, I would be happy to pass that on to my colleague the Minister of Industry (Mr. Downey).

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would be happy if the minister would make a commitment. You know, he has 2,000 of these vehicles, make a commitment to buy a half a dozen of each model every year and test them out and find out just where they can be used. I mean car makers do not go to the efforts that these people have done through the research and the development. There has to be some testing done of the vehicles in real-life situations, and what the car companies want to do is they want to get into little partnerships with fleets such as the minister's to find out what the shortcomings are and use the vehicles in real-life situations.

For example, conversion vehicles, which is what those old vehicles were 20 years ago--and I guess there are still some around--have been proven to be not as effective as a vehicle that is built from the ground up as an electric vehicle. In other words, I have spoken to some engineering people, and they claim that the battery life and stuff of the current batteries that they have, the metal-hydrate types and even the lead-acid batteries that GM are planning to use, at least at the beginning, are not really the major problem here, Mr. Minister, and the actual cold temperatures are not necessarily the most severe problems. The real problems with this technology, believe it or not, is wind resistance on the frame of the vehicle and the type of tires, the tire resistance on slush and stuff like that. So if they can develop a vehicle from the ground up using a different kind of tire technology and a different type of frame, then they have solved a lot of their problems.

People logically think that--the first reaction is it is a battery problem, and they are telling me it is not necessarily a battery problem. There is a lot more to be developed in this area, but we have to be looking at vehicles that are built from the ground up with this whole technology in mind, not just old production models of vehicles that have a bunch of batteries thrown in them. That is evidently, from what I can see, not the way to go.

Now, I do know in the United States the companies have tended to get into partnership with utility companies, and that makes sense. The utility companies are interested with the high price of gasoline. I mean, this is in a way the revenge of the taxpayer on the gasoline companies. Manitoba not being much of a gasoline producer and being a hydro producer, we even have more incentive to get in on this type of thing.

I suppose if you were in Alberta relying on gasoline, you would not want to see the end of the internal combustion engine if you were living in Calgary right now, because it might mean a decrease in your standard of living. Manitoba, on the other hand, having no gasoline, being held hostage by gasoline producing jurisdictions but having tons of electricity should be in a very good position here.

But with the documentation I have in Canada, the GM people got involved with B.C. Hydro. So B.C. Hydro is evidently going to take some of these vehicles. They are planning to set up conversion stations and stuff. In the United States they are involved in Los Angeles with the Los Angeles department of water and power and southern California Edison. Then in Phoenix they are involved with another utility, New York, Long Island, San Diego, Sacramento, San Francisco, Fort Lauderdale, Atlanta, Houston, Washington, D.C., and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

So I think some aggressive action, not just limiting yourself to checking out the documents, I mean, I can get the documents too, but I do not have the facilities to actually drive the idea forward and buy some vehicles and use some vehicles. You people do. I do not. So I think you need to do more than just get the information.

You should also, perhaps, if you could take it up with your colleagues in caucus and cabinet, the idea that has been employed in California. That is a $5,000, and as much as I disagree with tax credits for a lot of different things, they are offering a $5,000 tax credit to the first I think 1,200 purchasers of these vehicles in California. In Arizona they have gone further, and they are offering I think in addition to some sort of a tax credit a reduction in the vehicle registration. When we were in Highways Estimates I took it up with the minister there, and he offered to take a look into it.

But clearly price is a problem, as the minister alluded to, when you are dealing with a product that is three times the price of what you can buy these things for. It is easier when cost-conscious governments, it is kind of easy to go and say, well, let us just take this short term, and that is what it is, a short-term solution of buying the $15,000 vehicle, and wait till the price comes down.

But we also have a responsibility to society and to leave a proper society for our kids. So there is a balance that we have to have here, and I have confidence that the minister and the government will in fact see merit in this and will be more aggressive than passive, because the consumers who are purchasing vehicles in my constituency, in Elmwood, they are going to be the last people to buy these vehicles.

The leadership has to come from governments. That is where it has to come from. And I am certainly not suggesting that you convert your entire fleet overnight, that certainly cannot be done, but certainly getting in there and maybe beating out some of the other jurisdictions here. We have the hydro. Beating out some of the other jurisdictions might prove to be beneficial to us in the long run.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I believe it is the will of the committee to take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed at 10:50 a.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 11 a.m.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. We will resume the Estimates of Government Services.

Mr. Maloway: I would like to ask the minister if he could tell us how many untendered contracts have been given over the last 12 months and whether he could provide us copies of them. I asked for this information in Environment and received copies within days, so I assume the same thing can be done here.

Mr. Pallister: Every two weeks, and this information is available on a computer system, I am told, in the library down the hall here, that we have to report every untendered contract over $1,000. So that information is available on a regular basis. As far as the member's request, I am just a little hesitant, and I tell the member for Elmwood this frankly, because this may involve a little more time than we generally like to devote.

I am not trying to exclude him from any information in any way, shape or form here, but this information is available through other sources. So if the member would like, apart from this discussion, more information on how to access the information through other means, it might just mean his investing a bit more time, granted, but it would mean probably a little less time for staff.

Mr. Maloway: I am aware that there is the other method, but I have asked in the other departments and have gotten the information without any difficulties. Will the minister provide the information that was requested?

Mr. Pallister: If the member is prepared to wait the two or three days it would take to pull it all together, then we will do that for him just as a sign of my personal affection for the member.

Mr. Maloway: The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) has some questions and I think there may be some other critics in our caucus who may have some questions for the minister.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could you pull the mike up.

Mr. Jennissen: I would like to ask the minister some questions on the Manitoba Disaster Assistance Board relating to the fires in Leaf Rapids last summer, basically, two areas.

One of them is, I need some more information exactly how this operates, because it appears to be somewhat inconsistent, at least according to the letters that I received; and secondly, maybe ask some specific questions on some specific letters I have received.

If I could put that into a little bit of a context, I am not sure what a disaster assistance board is for if not to assist disaster victims. When I get people from Leaf Rapids coming to me saying, I bought a trailer but I could not get insurance, there was a fire, the place burnt down, I now have nothing, my kids have nothing, I have lost $30,000 worth of an investment and yet I do not meet the criteria, then, you know, obviously, we have some serious concerns.

So I guess first of all, I am not clear about the guidelines, why some people received assistance, why some people received partial assistance, why some people received absolutely nothing. The answers that some of the residents from Leaf Rapids that were affected got back from the Manitoba Disaster Assistance Board were basically that you are not meeting the criteria. This stuff was insurable, but they tell me that, no matter how hard they tried to get insurance, they could not get it, and not only just buildings inside the town itself, but sometimes buildings outside the town. Could I have a general answer on this?

Mr. Pallister: I thank the member for Flin Flon. We have had earlier discussion as well on some aspects of, I think, what he is questioning us about today. In terms of the purpose of the Disaster Assistance Board and the compensation and so on, yes, it is a board that rules on availability of redress for certain types of damages and certain types of cost consequences of disaster.

Now, the member, in terms of defining disaster, we could get into that, I suppose, in detail, but suffice it to say that the conditions around Leaf Rapids last year, as he knows, satisfied that requirement in a general sense. But that is not to say that every claim that is filed in Leaf Rapids following a fire or as a consequence of a fire is going to receive the compensation that is requested on that claim form. Each claim is treated with respect and treated as an individual thing because they are individuals who are claiming. In this instance, I think the member is concerned about claims that were filed where--and he has shared with me--I think communication. We have also talked with some of the individuals affected directly, with the assistance of the member.

The issue that I think he is wanting to address specifically is where an individual has said that they could not get insurance, how come they are not compensated? I hope I am not misinterpreting the member's question. The fact is that it is practice, I am told anyway, of long standing in Leaf Rapids and other communities that during a fire insurance is not available. This is something that is not a new practice, I am told, but rather is something of long standing.

The analogy that some certain insurance agents have told me that they use when trying to encourage individuals to have the proper coverage is that you are best not to wait until there is a fire in your basement to have your coverage in place. This is essentially, I think, an analogy that is reasonably accurate in describing the circumstances here.

Now, I am not trying to address an individual claimant's situation here. I know the member would not ask me to do that. It is not appropriate for me to do, of course, but suffice it to say that it is, I think, very well known among residents in his constituency and in others that when a fire threatens a community, it is not on, to then at that time, having been uninsured for a long time or a short time, for that matter, to go and say, now I want insurance, any more than it would be appropriate for someone who had just had the unfortunate circumstance of knowing that they were terminally ill to go and say, I demand to have life insurance. It is not common practice with insurance companies, nor should it be.

The reality is, insurance coverage against fire is readily available in the member's community as it is in communities throughout our province, although recently there have been exceptions raised of concern in the inner city of Winnipeg that I think concern all of us. The availability of fire insurance in Leaf Rapids is not at issue here. That, I believe, would be the primary reason that the Disaster Assistance Board would be considering in taking on the position that it did with, I believe, the claim the member is referring to, that those claims would not be paid.

It is not the purpose of the Disaster Assistance Board and the assistance funds that they manage to be made available in place of insurance that is readily available. They are not to be functioning as the insurer of last resort, so to speak.

So, as unfortunate as it is, and the member knows I share his concern for these people that have lost property in very unfortunate circumstances, the first responsibility is theirs to protect their own assets. The first obligation is theirs to purchase insurance that is readily available in their communities, not just when a fire threatens but in advance and in anticipation of the possibility of those events happening, not just in the next day or week but at some future point.

As much as it discourages me not to be able to tell the member that, yes, as an individual I would love to see each of these people compensated for. When I am charged with the responsibility and the Disaster Assistance Board has that fiduciary trust, I suppose, to manage the resources of all Manitobans as they see is best and just, it is not possible to do that and at the same time offer compensation to individuals who--some of the situations the member may be referring to may be situations that were, however unfortunate, caused by a lack of preparedness on the part of the individuals that he refers to.

* (1110)

Mr. Jennissen: Well, the minister keeps repeating the phrase, insurance being readily available, but that is not the impression that I get from some of the people who own trailers. I guess the concern arose when a trailer was being bought. I think people that owned trailers and were insured, the company kept them on, but if you were a new purchaser, you bought a trailer, you had a devil of a time finding insurance. It simply was not given in some cases or they were being stalled month after month.

It was not that the people were unwilling to have the material insured. They just could not get the insurance, not only on the trailer, but especially on outbuildings outside of town. In the case of the Andersons there was a dog yard worth $15,000. They tried everything they could to get it insured and it was not insured, they could not get it insured. It was burnt and there was no compensation whatsoever and I am questioning the fairness of that.

Mr. Pallister: The member raises kind of a range of possibilities. The Disaster Assistance Board has never compensated people for loss of hobby activities or part-time businesses. Not necessarily am I addressing the individual situation that the member raises, as that would not be appropriate of me to do that, but I would say that the member should understand that that is a practice that is of long standing with the Disaster Assistance Board, that they do not offer that kind of compensation.

But the member does raise an interesting scenario when he suggests that there are individuals who have tried repeatedly to get insurance and were not, over months, I believe was the member's words, and I would encourage him as I have in the past that if there are situations such as he describes that there is an appeal mechanism. I am not sure if this individual that he is referring to has utilized that or not, but certainly if it can be proven that the individual could not get insurance and was not offered insurance on an asset, then if that can be proven, the board I am sure would be looking at that. I understand that is not an unprecedented thing, for the board to entertain appeals of that nature.

Mr. Jennissen: Some of the people who did appeal, and I think the appeals were denied, were being told that especially a building outside of town could not be insured or was not insured in the past are bringing up the fact that under this government in the past, in fact, there was one particular building outside of Leaf Rapids, I believe it was a trapper's cabin, I am not sure, that was not insured, that did burn in a forest fire and was compensated. This person was compensated. So they are arguing, if it can be done once by this government, why can it not be done again? The precedent has been set.

Mr. Pallister: Well, I do not know the specifics of the situation the member cites. I think we are talking here about an anecdotal piece of evidence, and it is very difficult for me to respond to that. I do know that there is a process, and it is the same for all Manitobans, that they can avail themselves of in a situation where they feel losses have occurred due to a disaster circumstance and they wish to use the application process. They can use it. They can use the appeal process as well. It is the same process for everyone. As far as the issue of precedence and so on, the specific incidence and the specific instance of supposed compensation being paid I am not aware of. That does not mean to question the member. I am not questioning the member's integrity here at all. I think he knows that. It may have occurred, but it is not something that has occurred to my knowledge.

Mr. Jennissen: Do I understand the minister correctly when he says he does not particularly want to get into individual cases because I do have the John and Bev Roach case, the Shelly and Desmond Haas case, the Charlie Ducharme case, specific cases, I think, where people have appealed? Does he not want to get into those cases?

Mr. Pallister: I would question the wisdom of us discussing individual cases, yes.

Mr. Jennissen: I am taking that into account.

Mr. Pallister: I was just saying in this particular forum I would question the wisdom of dealing with individual cases of this nature at this point in time, but I cannot certainly stop the member from pursuing as he wishes to.

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, and now this is my last question to the minister.

When applying to the Disaster Assistance Board, these people get letters back stating stuff like we do not compensate items that are normally insurable. I am just wondering if, in general, and also specifically in these cases, we do not need northern guidelines because the North is not the same as the south. There are all kinds of peculiar and unique situations that just do not occur south of 53. Maybe we need to be more flexible, because I have a lot of angry people out there who felt that they have not been treated fairly.

Mr. Pallister: I would encourage the member to do everything he can to make sure that these individuals understand a couple of things. First of all, I would hope that he would communicate to them certainly my sincerity in regard to the concerns I have over their losses. I understand how difficult it is if somebody who has tried in his life to pull himself up and tried to accumulate some of the accoutrements of life and tried to pay for a home and tried to continue to make payments in that regard for material possessions how very difficult it is when one saves and works to accumulate those things to see them lost. It is a horrible thing. I would hope that he would understand, and I know that he appreciates the sincerity with which I say that. I would also hope though that he understands that for us to create a situation where we have special Manitobans or create special categories of rules is also a very difficult thing for us to do.

I would think--not from the member so much--but certainly I have heard some of his colleagues make reference to preferential treatment being given to people in southern Manitoba or in rural Manitoba. I hear those charges made and I would hope that they are not valid ones and so, too, I would hope--because the member understands that there should not be truth in those accusations. I would not want there to be truth that there was any kind of preferential arrangement put into place for people just because they were domiciled in a certain area without a good case being made that that was a legitimate and valid difference that applied specifically to that particular group of individuals.

I should share with the member though--and I know that this does not give any peace or solace to the people who did not get their claims paid and felt badly treated--that we did pay individual claims in the area of about $100,000 to people of Leaf Rapids, and the town itself of Leaf Rapids received compensation just under $150,000. I know that does not give any solace to the individuals whose claims were not paid, but there were claims paid, and many. So I would not want the picture to be at all created that for some reason everyone was displeased by their treatment with the Disaster Assistance Board. I also have had calls from people expressing appreciation and support for the way that they were treated, and positive comments as well.

The member has communicated to me some concerns and some critical comments. I respect that, and that is understandable given the circumstances, but I would not want the impression left that that was, by any means, a majority view or one that was held by all parties. In his own constituency, I know that he realizes that is not the case.

Mr. Jennissen: I thank the minister. Now, in the interest of time constraints that we are all facing, I would like to pass the questioning over to my honourable colleague for Wolseley.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of questions on issues that I raised last time in the Estimates of Government Services.

I think we are a little further down the line on the renovations to the new site for the deaf school, the Alexander Ross School, in St. James. I wonder if the minister could tell me what the estimate is or what budget he is working with for the renovations of that school and the residence which will be part of the school? Does the minister have a breakdown of any of the renovations?

* (1120)

Mr. Pallister: What I could do is unnecessarily use up the time of this committee by giving some background to the member, which I do not believe she needs, so I will not do that, but I can say that globally I believe we are looking at a budget of about $3.2 million--is that correct?--I am sorry, $3.3 million for the total project. That is a considerable increase, as the member knows, over the original projections, but given, I guess, partly at least--the member, I think, probably knows as much or more of the background of these discussions than I do, but I would just say that this would be partly as a result of a series of, I understand, 15 meetings of an implementation committee, which provided advice and ideas on the finalization of plans for the relocation and renovation of the facility.

There were extensive changes, as a result of those meetings, to both the educational and the technological requirements that were initially projected for the preliminary design of the facility. I should clarify that this implementation committee was made up of representatives from various government departments as well as my own department and the Department of Education. There was a consultant team with Advisory Council for School Leadership members as part of that, Winnipeg Community Centre for the Deaf, advisory board for the deaf and hard of hearing. As well, representatives from the Manitoba School for the Deaf students and the Manitoba School for the Deaf staff were on that implementation committee.

I am told that in terms of the current status, it is the understanding that the concerns of the implementation committee have been addressed, the design of the project is complete, and we have currently a situation where the consultant is preparing construction documents as we speak, and the estimated tender date has been passed. I believe the tenders are active at this point in time.

We are hopeful that a renovated Alexander Ross School would be able to be occupied and serving its purpose early in the next year.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, early in the next year meaning early in the next academic year, or do you mean January, February '97?

Mr. Pallister: In early 1997.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, yes, there is a considerable increase in this budget, and I wondered if the minister could give me some breakdown of that budget? For example, I understand that there have been new proposals to include residential facilities within the school whereas, at one point, there was the possibility of having residential facilities close by but not actually in the school. There are obviously components, at least I am assuming and I wonder if the minister could confirm this, of this which are related to the installation of educational and instructional aspects, computers, for example.

So how does the budget look on this? How much is actually related to building renovation? How much is educational equipment? How much is related to residential construction for residential purposes, or is there a budget that is available for the committee to look at?

Mr. Pallister: I apologize to the member for not having that information with me, but I will make that available to her in detail, and it will outline I think satisfactorily some of the points she alludes to but, again, sorry that I do not have that here with me at this time.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister also tell us what the tendering process was for each of these portions?

Mr. Pallister: I am told the tendering process is a normal construction tender process and that the tender would have been promoted and made available through the OBS system, open bidding service, which would allow for participation from a wide array of interested parties.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me whether there was a bidding process for the educational equipment and the building system separately? How many bidding processes were there in this, and could the minister give us the dates of those bids?

Mr. Pallister: I think we can also make that information available to the member in more detail than it would be possible for me today, but I can tell her that, yes, it is not a global tender. It is broken down by category and always with a view to obtaining the best products at the lowest possible cost, of course, and that are most suitable for the purposes intended. I am told we have in the area of 20 different tenders as part of this project's completion and, again, I would be pleased to make that information available to the member for her interest.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me when this material would be available, and I am also interested, is the tendering complete? Are all the tenders that need to be let done?

Mr. Pallister: The tender due dates, if I am using the correct, and I am probably not using the correct terminology, but the response dates vary, but suffice to say in a range of a couple of weeks to less than two months. As far as the availability of information to the member, I think we can have that available for her in the next couple of days.

Ms. Friesen: I am not sure I understood the minister's first response. What I was asking was, are all the tenders that are going to be let for this project let. Was that the answer that you were giving?

Mr. Pallister: I was responding to the time of response, that is, when would the tenders close, but as far as letting the tenders, I am told that, with perhaps one or two exceptions, all the tenders have now been let.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister refresh my memory on whether this school has been purchased by the department and at what price or whether it is still in the prospect of a lease?

Mr. Pallister: Yes, the school has been purchased. It was purchased for a price of $171,000. That was as a consequence of negotiation between St. James-Assiniboia School Division and our department and working with the Public Schools Finance Board. As the member knows, those discussions were conducted with fervour over a considerable period of time, but, nevertheless, resulted in a mutually agreeable price being established for the purchase of the school.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the minister will be sending me a list of the contracts that have been let, the dates of those contracts and the names of the people who have fulfilled those contracts some time in the next few days.

Mr. Pallister: Yes, yes and no, because some of the people who will fulfill the contracts have not been decided at this point in time. The deadline for tender applications has not been reached, so I could not give the member that information at this point, but I think she would understand that.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, but, for those contracts which have been let, the names will be there of the companies. Okay. Thanks very much.

* (1130)

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, this is probably the only opportunity that we are going to get as members who represent the areas that suffered severe flooding and damages during the past year and also last year in some flash flooding that has been prevalent in much of my constituency, and I want to take this opportunity to commend the department and all of their staff and the actions that they took and the job that they did. It was tremendously appreciated by the people in our constituency, and we think the quickness with which they acted is simply a pure demonstration of the ability of people of the caliber that you have in your department, Mr. Minister, to act with the municipal people and co-ordinate the kind of efforts that were put to keep the damages at a minimal level that were kept, and I think there was a commendable effort. I think you, as the minister, should take note of that kind of efficient movement, and I think we should also commend the municipalities and all the people who work within the municipalities to alleviate the damages and apprise themselves of the quick action that they took.

The question I have is, I am still concerned, as many of our municipal people are concerned, about the ability of the municipalities to utilize all the resources at their disposal when these kinds of emergencies occur. That is, in a large part, the federal aspect of remuneration for the damages that occurred and the equipment used and the manpower used virtually at the drop of a hat sometimes, the quickness with which they took action. Has the department or the minister received any indication from the federal government that the allowance of those expenditures will be tabulated and used in calculating the final damages and submission of the bills?

Mr. Pallister: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to express my thanks to the member for his positive comments, and I will pass those on certainly to our staff. I also want to echo his comments about the tremendous work. Words fail me in terms of describing how important it is, the role that our municipal officials play, in terms of pre-emptive work that was done this year and in other disasters, certainly in areas represented by members of the New Democratic Party as well. Municipal officials play a tremendously significant role in terms of being the front line of defence against disasters, whether it be fire, flood or other examples that we have all too often experienced in our province, and it is with deep gratitude that we respect their role and the vital role that they play.

The municipal officials that we have had the privilege of working with in the term of my tenure in this department have, without exception, demonstrated an ability to manage in difficult circumstances with severe time constraints and under the most pressing and emotional circumstances as well, a capability that is exemplary. They have demonstrated repeatedly that they will effect the results, whether it be protection of life or protection of property, that they will do it in a cost-effective manner whether it be by expeditiously proceeding to minimize losses or damage, whether it be by utilizing volunteers and recruiting staff in their own locale, and they will do that without exception.

It is particularly disheartening, I know, to the member and to me and to all of our colleagues when I see the disrespect with which the federal government and its representatives at Emergency Preparedness Canada are treating municipal officials. For a decade or more municipal officials were given the respect and latitude to be compensated on the use of their own machinery, equipment, staff when they deemed it appropriate to use those resources in the difficult circumstances. Around the time when they had to make those decisions, they were given the respect and dignified by fair treatment in terms of the equitable treatment for cost compensation that those particular assets received.

Whether they were used or whether they tendered out and utilized other sources, private sources, or brought in staff, made no difference. Municipal officials were given the latitude to make that call. That was a good system, a fair system. It worked effectively to mitigate the damages that were done to protect the health and the well-being of Manitoba citizens for a long time. Arbitrarily, without notice last year, the federal government's auditors began to throw out claims made by municipalities when they used their own equipment and machinery.

Now the basic, fundamental premise under which disaster cost-sharing works is this, that we cannot budget. We cannot predict effectively what the costs or the damages are going to be of unforeseen incidents. Tornadoes, floods, fires, things like this cannot reasonably be expected to be budgeted for at the municipal level of government. It is very, very difficult to face up to the challenges of dealing with these circumstances, but municipal officials are best equipped to do it and we recognize that.

So we oppose the federal government's arbitrary changes to their practices of long standing, because what they effectively do is they download those costs the municipalities have to incur on to municipalities unnecessarily and unfairly. Municipalities such as the ones represented by members at this table do not have a lot of population for the most part. Relative to the population of our country, we have a very small population in each of our constituencies. It is wholly unfair to expect the ratepayers of Dauphin or Morris or Portage la Prairie or Flin Flon to have to shoulder the burden of the consequences of a flood or a fire that was not of their own making and not something that they should be fairly asked to absorb.

So the premise of the basic program as it was established was that once costs got to a certain level, the municipalities could begin to cost-share with the province and once costs got to again a higher level, the province and municipality could again begin to share with the people of Canada so that the significant costs would be distributed among all Canadians, and the smaller costs would have to be borne by the municipalities.

When one recognizes that a considerable portion of the costs that are incurred, as in the case of flood and fire especially, is for machinery and equipment by necessity for the cleanup, for the prevention and so on of damage, for dike repair, for building fire breaks and things like this, it is wholly unfair for the federal government to expect municipalities, just because they have the equipment, to not be compensated for the use of it. Because the reality is when a municipality uses a grader or a bulldozer it depreciates in value. It depreciates rapidly. So the very real cost of using that piece of equipment is borne by the municipality if it is not compensated in a fair and equitable manner by the federal government.

A similar situation exists for use of staff. Last year Portage la Prairie, for example, was given less than two hours notice that it was to host Gods Lake Narrows Reserve residents and they were flown to Portage la Prairie, effectively increasing the population of my home town by almost 10 percent. That was a gracious thing that the host community did and all host communities do an honourable thing in hosting evacuees.

The reality is, however, that Portage la Prairie's costs were fully compensated because that was an aboriginal community. Had it been a nonaboriginal community, had it been the residents from a small community, say, near Dauphin or Flin Flon that were of mixed population, the federal government's new policy would be to say, no, no, Portage, you do not get compensated. You do not get compensated for using your own staff because you have staff.

Well, yes, Portage has staff. The Town of Dauphin has staff. Flin Flon has staff. But they have other duties. That is why they are there. Those other duties are put on the back burner while these folks go out and host, as good people that they are, evacuees who are in need of help and support. How we can expect these host communities to hire people on two hours notice, and train them and equip them to deal with these kinds of emergencies is truly beyond me, and how we can ask them to do that job and not compensate them for doing it is also, really defies logic, I think.

So I appreciate the support that has been expressed by the member and by other members on our side of the House. I have heard similar comments from members on the other side of the House, that they are deeply concerned about this issue, and I believe that if we continue to express our concerns and ask for answers from the federal government, we will ultimately be treated in a fair and reasonable manner, and municipalities will be given the respect that they deserve and be given the latitude to make the decisions that they must make.

I appreciate, again, the comments of the member. They are well thought out, and I will again pass those on to our emergency measures and Disaster Aassistance staff.

* (1140)

Mr. Penner: I appreciate those comments from the minister. I think one of the dilemmas that many of the municipalities are now facing, after the fact that most of the flood waters have receded substantially enough to be able to start some of the damage repair, leads to the--and the uncertainty that is being created as to whether they can in fact utilize their equipment and expect some form of compensation is where the crux of the matter lies. Many of us that represent the areas, the flooded areas, have spent many of our weekends with municipal officials touring and taking a look at the damages. But the question I hear time and time again, should we use our own equipment to help remediate damage, and should we use our own resources, or should we contract out much of what is there? Should we bring in equipment from and incur vast additional expenditures, or should we keep the expenditures at a minimal level?

I think the other issue lies in the damages that many of these municipalities have incurred to their own equipment while doing these kinds of works. I just remember, at the start of the flooding, when municipal backhoes and caterpillars were used to clear drainage ditches and ice out of drainage ditches, in my constituency alone, there were three of these large backhoes, which cost anywhere between $250,000 to $500,000 apiece, buried in water because they slipped through the ice and the snow, broke through the ice and the snow, and were totally submerged in water. It was a huge expenditure that the municipality incurred to repair the damages to their own equipment, and for them not to be compensated for those kinds of extraordinary costs is simply unconscionable, I believe.

Similarly now, when the repair work starts, when much of this equipment is sent into these areas to clean out ditches and/or you never know how deep the washouts are going to be and whether it is swampland that you are entering into, you can very easily submerge a piece of equipment in this kind of muck. Again, to expect the municipalities to incur at those costs out of locally funded municipal levies is, not only unfair, but it is unreasonable. It is hard to believe that any level of government would not respect the involvement of offsetting some of those costs by those kinds of unnatural disasters.

Mr. Pallister: The member makes several good points. First of all, again, just to reiterate, municipal equipment that was damaged, we have precedents that tell us that those damages were cost compensated in the past. We have sent the federal government over a thousand examples to explain to them that, yes, they have departed from past accepted practice. The guidelines themselves, as guidelines are, were departed from in numerous cases and the relevant issue here is, what were the practices accepted by the various levels of government? What was actually done in terms of cost-sharing?

What was actually done for many, many years was that compensation was provided to municipalities who used their own equipment, who out of necessity had to redirect their staff because they were being flooded or having a fire or whatever the case may be.

The municipalities were fairly compensated when they made that decision and it did not force municipalities to have to choose one or another option, one of which would have a severe negative impact on the ratepayers, the other which would make them eligible for compensation but may cause them to incur heavy additional costs. Granted, they would get compensation for those, but those would be distributed among other ratepayers, that being all Canadians. So we create a circumstance with this departure from established practice that is not a healthy one or a good one and that again shows disrespect to municipal officials who are accountable to a great degree, far greater I think than our federal elected officials are frankly, because they live in the same communities as those who put them in office and they are directly responsible to those people.

They also must manage in a fiscal environment which says they must balance their budgets and so they become intelligent managers of necessity. I would put the fiscal management skills of our municipal officials in Manitoba up against the fiscal management skills of any federal government regardless of its political stripe over the last 25 years and then ask people to objectively compare the management skills that have been demonstrated by the two groups. I would think that it would be unanimous that people would say that there was a demonstrated case of long standing that municipal officials, elected and accountable as they are, can manage more prudently and more effectively the financial affairs of their jurisdiction than can a federal government.

The fact of the matter is that all of us are sympathetic to the difficulties faced by federal officials in terms of cost containment. They are trying to reduce their cost at the federal level. The Liberal government, in order to reduce their annual deficits and in order to begin to re-establish some sense of fiscal sanity in our nation, all of us are sympathetic to that. Without exception we would support that and contend that that is a wise and noble direction but, to do that on the backs of the ratepayers of Dauphin or Flin Flin or Swan River or Portage la Prairie or Brandon or any other community when it has a flood or a fire or a train derailment is just ludicrous and not defensible in any way, so for us to continue this fight, I think, is essential. I think that we have to assert the position that our ratepayers and our constituents would want us to assert, and that is that it is not fair to download onto local governments and onto local people the costs for disasters not of their own making. That is not fair or right. I only wish that the members of Parliament who were elected in our areas in Manitoba to represent the people of those areas would stop simply representing the position of bureaucrats in Ottawa to our constituents and rather would take a look at the facts.

Several members of Parliament, a Mr. David Iftody, a Marlene Cowling, a Jon Gerrard, a Glen McKinnon and I believe as well a Lloyd Axworthy, have distributed photocopied letters produced I am not sure by whom, but a nameless and faceless person in Ottawa, I expect, which misrepresent the facts of the issue and which purport to tell their constituents in the various means that they have chosen to distribute these letters, usually by local community newspapers, that tell local residents in Manitoba that there has been no change, that the federal government has not changed their practices one iota. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is unfortunate that we elect people to represent us in Ottawa and they very quickly turn around and choose to represent Ottawa to us. This is sad and unfortunate.

I would urge members of our committee, and I have urged members, colleagues in the House, to continue to represent the views of their constituents strongly and force these members of Parliament to take a long look at this issue, to understand it better. It is clear that they do not understand it, and they have chosen not to understand it. That is very unfortunate.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I would just like to point out to the other members of the committee, there was a suggested time by the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) of 10 minutes to. If we could try to squeeze what we can in there. It is up to the critics, though.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): I was aware that there was an agreement to wrap this up by 12, so I was very much itching to get to the microphone. I have a couple of questions on one issue and just some concerns that I will state on the discussion that went on about the flooding. I want to start with the position of the Disaster Assistance Board in regard to nets and damage of nets on Lake Winnipeg.

People have approached those of us on this side of the House with some concerns about what they claim to be a change in policy of the Disaster Assistance Board. There is a lot of confusion right now as to why so many claims have been denied. The confusion comes in as to the reason why. Is the reason that the federal government has pulled out of these programs or the reason why the claims have been denied because of change in the definition of “disaster?”

* (1150)

I would like the minister to clarify that for me. Also, the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) was especially interested in knowing what kind of assurance the minister can give that the people in Dauphin River, in Jackhead and Fisher River are going to be able to have their claims proceeded upon and may be successful with their claims, so if the minister could quickly give me those answers I would appreciate it.

Mr. Pallister: I will start with the second part of the question asked on behalf of the member for Interlake, whom I have had discussion with on this issue, but I can give no assurance to the member that claims will be paid because it is not in my purview to make that assurance. The Disaster Assistance Board makes those recommendations, and we have a process that, as the member knows, is available to his constituents and is one that is, I believe, fair and the same process that all Manitobans can avail themselves of.

I think at the heart of this issue is, and this would be my understanding of it, that we have a situation where--the member says, has the definition of “disaster” changed? No. But there is not, nor has there ever been, the intention to cover recurring risks of trade. That is, if a person puts a claim in for something one year, it may be treated as a compensable item by the Disaster Assistance Board; but, when it becomes evident that such a claim is coming in on an annual or biannual basis, then the evidence begins to mount that it is not something that is an occasional thing, that it is not due to circumstances that are--again, I cannot give the member the exact definition from the guidelines. I do not have them here right now, but a disaster is not--it may be a disaster to an individual farmer if they have a drought each year for three years, that may be a disaster, but to suggest that the loss of a tractor in a mudhole every year is a disaster is stretching it.

There is management involved, and when things recur year over year and you get repeat claims, which is a reality, certainly a reality that is well known, I think, in any insurance or compensation program. If you talk to anyone who administers them, they will tell you that there is a danger in that some people are motivated--and I am not alluding here necessarily to the situation the member is raising, but just a general statement if the member will allow me--there is a danger when compensation is paid to one group, or for one circumstance, that there will be a higher incidence of repeat claims over a period of time because compensation was given. That is why, at the heart of the disaster assistance arrangements that have been entered into by our province with the federal government, and with municipalities, and with individuals in Manitoba, there is a provision clearly stating that recurring risks of trade are not to be considered compensable.

I hope that addresses what the member is getting at. Again, I do not want to deal with individuals' specific claims, I do not think this is the appropriate venue for that, but suffice to say, that the recurring risks of trade are the responsibility of the individual who carries on that trade, whether it be store owners or farmers or fishermen. Individuals have to manage around that and clearly, the fear would be, I suppose, here--and it has been expressed to me by fishermen--that the existence of the program might in some way encourage practices that would not be followed by fishermen if there was not such a program in place, thereby simply jeopardizing the way in which people manage their operation in a negative manner, that is, farming, as we used to call it in the crop insurance industry, farming for the program.

We do not want to create a circumstance like that where people are making--I will use the farming analogy because it is my background I guess--but you do not want to see people farming for the program; you would rather see them do what is the best, make the best decisions, management decisions, in the absence of these artificial contrivances that are put in play.

It is the same thing here, I think. We do not want to see a situation where we are encouraging practices that are to the detriment of the fishermen involved. I think that that would be a contributing factor in terms of what the board's thoughts are on the issue.

Mr. Struthers: I thank the minister for that answer.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I would like the members of the committee to know that we are not going to finish this.

Mr. Struthers: I will just wrap up my questions there then.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 8.1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $368,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $39,200--pass.

8.1.(c) Finance (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $575,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $221,300--pass.

8.1.(d) Human Resource Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $460,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $181,000--pass.

8.1.(e) Information Technology Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $357,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $60,100--pass.

8.1.(f) Lieutenant Governor's Office (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $97,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $62,500--pass.

8.2. Property Management (a) Executive Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $150,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $22,100--pass.

8.2.(b) Physical Plant (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $15,495,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $28,842,000--pass; (3) Preventative Maintenance $161,000--pass; (4) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($57,000)--pass.

8.2.(c) Leased Properties (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $47,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures$17,654,100--pass.

8.2.(d) Property Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $375,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $246,800--pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($235,400)--pass.

8.2.(e) Security and Parking (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,572,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $602,600--pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($1,613,000)--pass.

8.2.(f) Accommodation Cost Recovery ($37,052,000)--pass.

Resolution 8.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $27,212,000 for Government Services, Property Management, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.

8.3. Supply and Services (a) Executive Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $170,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $16,300--pass.

8.3.(b) Government Air Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $3,365,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $5,269,400--pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($8,634,400)--pass.

8.3.(c) Office Equipment Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $482,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,852,800--pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($2,335,100)--pass.

8.3.(d) Purchasing (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,124,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $404,100--pass.

8.3.(e) Telecommunications (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $976,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $4,660,800--pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($4,902,600)--pass.

Resolution 8.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,449,700 for Government Services, Supply and Services, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.

8.3.(f) Mail Management Agency (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits, nil--pass; (2) Other Expenditures nil--pass; (3) Postage nil--pass; (4) Less: Recoverable nil--pass.

8.3.(g) Materials Distribution Agency, nil--pass.

8.3.(h) Land Management Services, nil--pass.

8.3.(j) Fleet Vehicles Agency, nil--pass.

Item 8.4. Accommodation Development--

An Honourable Member: Leave to not see the clock?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The will of the--no. The hour being twelve o’clock, committee rise.

Order, please. It has been stated that we agreed not to see the clock for a couple of minutes. [interjection]

The committee is adjourned. We will finish this within a couple minutes when we come back to committee.

Committee adjourned.