Vol

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Some time passes until about 14:35 at which time:

Okay, now we will resolve into Committee of Supply.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Concurrence Motion

* (14:40)

Mr. Chairperson (Conrad Santos): The Committee of Supply has before it for our consideration the motion concurring in all supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2006.

The floor is now open for questions.

Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the minister. Yesterday I know we were asking a number of questions around the schools that were tendered or that were promised, awarded, I guess, in April of '03, along with the last three or four that have been tendered since he became the minister, certainly this spring. I just wondered if he could provide me with any of that material, as he indicated yesterday he would have it by today.

Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Yes, I can put on the record the status of the schools that were promised in '03-04. Currently, Happy Thought School in Lord Selkirk School Division is at the working drawing stage and will shortly be going to tender.

Garden Valley School Division, the school, as I mentioned I was there for the sod turning. So it is underway. South St. Vital school for the Division scolaire franco-manitobaine is currently at the sketch plan stage.

Carberry Collegiate in the Beautiful Plains School Division, phase 1 of that project is at the working drawing stage. Phase 2 of the project is at the sketch plan stage. Inwood at Lakeshore is a working drawing/tender at this point. Deloraine School in Southwest Horizon is at the tender stage.

Mr. Maguire: I know I had asked the minister for a list of all the schools that had been awarded since the election in '03, as well, and wondered if he can provide that now. I do not need them all quoted into Hansard here right now if there are any, but I was just asking if he could make that available to me.

Mr. Bjornson: I do not have a sufficient number of documents at this table, but I will request the staff to photocopy them, to take one for you.

Mr. Maguire: Mr. Chair, if he has them there, I wonder if his staff could just have them copied and sent in to me unless, of course, he wants to read them out now as to where we are at.

Mr. Bjornson: I will have staff photocopy them, so we have a sufficient number at the table.

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Chairperson, I would like to ask the minister if schools are to have purchased their land before they get into actual expenditure of design, you know, in terms of hiring the architect and spending tens of thousands of dollars on architectural design, hiring a consultant and spending tens of thousands on consultant fees. Is it normal practice for that kind of money to be spent, tens of thousands of dollars, before a school even has land purchased?

Mr. Bjornson: The normal practice would be for school divisions, in their capital plan, to purchase property on speculation that, according to the five-year capital plan they would be submitting to the Public Schools Finance Board, they would purchase that property, anticipating construction of the school. Of course, those five-year capital plans, they do due diligence in assessing enrolment patterns, in assessing demographic shifts and assessing need based on age-expired buildings that might currently service that school division.

So the process for acquisition is one that is on speculation that new schools will be built. There are a number of school divisions that do speculate and acquire land as a result of their long-term planning, and there are many school divisions that do own property for the purpose of the construction of schools.

Mrs. Driedger: Would the minister find it strange for a lot of money to be spent if a school did not already own property?

Mr. Bjornson: I am sorry. Could the member clarify that question?

Mrs. Driedger: Would the minister find it strange if a school division was spending tens of thousands of dollars, but they still did not own any property for that new school? They spent it, say, on designing the school, but they do not have the land yet. Would the minister find that strange in terms of the process that is set out for the building of new schools?

Mr. Bjornson: Again, each individual school construction is different. There are some other considerations around what realities that school division might face with respect to the property that is available for the project. There are a lot of different challenges for schools if they are renovating on-site or expanding and the current site does not necessarily have the sufficient play area as per the regulations or their recommendations. So, as far as I know, as the process unfolds, each individual school has to look at some of the challenges that they might face with respect to acquiring more property to meet their needs.

Mrs. Driedger: Can the minister tell us if Seven Oaks School Division owns their new property yet for the West Kildonan Collegiate?

Mr. Bjornson: I will have to take that as notice. I cannot confirm at this time that they do indeed have legal title.

Mrs. Driedger: The minister in Estimates said at one point that, yes, they owned the land, and then turned around basically and said, no, they did not own the land. So the minister is unaware right now. Is that what he is saying as to what is actually happening with that land for that new high school?

Mr. Bjornson: No, I also have mentioned in Estimates that the offer to purchase, from what I understand, had gone through the process and agreements were signed. It was a matter of time before the title was transferred.

Mrs. Driedger: Can the minister tell us what due diligence his department did in monitoring the activities of the Seven Oaks School Division in purchasing that land?

Mr. Bjornson: Well, again, you are talking about duly elected officials who deal with an arm's-length organization of government through the Public Schools Finance Board. This is an arm's-length organization. The rules are set up as such where the duly elected officials bring forward their proposals for land acquisition and disposition, and that is dealt with by the Public Schools Finance Board. Again, once a ministerial award has been approved for the purpose of the construction of the schools, the school divisions are compensated accordingly for the expense incurred in the purchase of that land.

* (14:50)

Mrs. Driedger: Well, considering the minister has become aware only within the last few weeks of the activity of the Seven Oaks School Division in illegal land development, and since he has been questioned on what is happening in the Seven Oaks School Division in terms of the development of the new high school, would the minister not have felt some concern and wanted to know a little bit more from Seven Oaks in terms of assurances that, in fact, the development of that new piece of land on the east side of Main Street was for a high school only?

Did he not do any further questioning or have his staff? Did he not ask his staff to find out if there was anything going on in that particular area? Is he just assuming that nothing is happening because maybe Brian O'Leary, NDP campaign manager and superintendent, said, "Do not worry about it, nothing further is going on"? Would the minister not have felt he had some responsibility to, at least, ask some questions?

Mr. Bjornson: The department is engaged in that process as there are many questions that have been brought up as a result of what has transpired in Seven Oaks. That is why we are engaged in the process of the 30-day review.

Mrs. Driedger: The minister is not coming across very well in his management of this whole issue, in terms of his demonstration of leadership and the types of questions and requests he should be making to his staff. He seems to think that as a minister, all he has to do is sit back and wait for his staff maybe to read his mind and go out and do things. What leadership has he provided or demanded of his staff?

In terms of asking whether or not there is any or has been–until all of this hit the fan–has there been anything going on in terms of future land development in that new area where the high school is going to be going? Where is his leadership in asking for some information in that? I would think he would be a little bit concerned and, as the minister, made some demands of his staff. Has he not done that?

Mr. Bjornson: I immediately engaged the acting deputy minister to establish the terms of reference for the 30-day review that is going to get to the heart of the issue we have been discussing in Estimates and in the House. The school divisions were all reminded through letters about the disposition process currently outlined in The Public Schools Act, so that was the immediate action that was taken. All the specific issues raised with regard to the situation in Seven Oaks will be addressed through this review process.

Mrs. Driedger: While the minister has, I think, far more faith in that review process than probably anybody else in this province, I think that is extremely naive of him because those terms of reference were very, very political. Those terms of reference were designed to protect him and other NDP friends and supporters. Those terms of reference are not going to get anywhere near the kind of answers that we need in this review.

We have said a number of times that the only way we are going to get to the bottom of all of this, as the minister plays a significant role in this whole issue because he is the one that dropped the ball in a very serious way in terms of ministerial management and accountability, and it was this minister that dropped the ball. It was this minister who never received information in a timely manner which should be very disconcerting to this minister where others around him have a land management review which is a forensic financial analysis of what was going on in Seven Oaks School Division.

Where a legal opinion was sought, the minister was totally out of the loop through that whole period of time where something last fall triggered all of these things to happen. Until the minister was asked, I believe it might have been May 2, he did not have a clue what was going on in his own department. Then, once the Public Schools Finance Board decided to seek these reviews back in the fall, never once, he tells us, was he told about it.

In fact, yesterday, when asked how often does he meet with the Public Schools Finance Board, his answers were absolutely loosey-goosey. It was sort of whenever they feel like it or whenever he feels like it. One of our former ministers indicated that he met with them on a monthly basis, and you have to wonder who is running the show in the Department of Education. Who is holding the reins there, or who is pulling the minister's strings? This minister does not seem to be the one that is in control of his department, and he does not seem to be the one who understands what his role is as a minister in a department, particularly of such a big department.

So, if the minister actually thinks that anybody has faith in his terms of reference, I think certainly the minister has got his head in a cloud because the terms of reference, as they have been set up, are totally unacceptable. They are absolutely politicized. They do not look at the minister's role; they do not look at the department's role. We have illegal action that has been continuing even as the minister turns a blind eye to what is going on in that school division. He was, you know, weeks ago, told and even finally received the legal opinion that what Seven Oaks School Division was doing was illegal, and yet the minister did nothing.

He did nothing a year ago when he got the complaint from a resident of the Seven Oaks School Division, who is absolutely concerned and worried about what is happening with taxpayers' money. There is language out there like "fraud." There is language out there about cover-up, and this is coming from individuals in that constituency who have been asking this minister for some information for the last year and this minister has totally ignored it. So, if the minister thinks that people around him have any faith in this smoke and mirrors review that he is doing right now, he will be sorely disappointed because nobody has faith.

The one thing I would like to ask the minister, as they are moving forward with this review, because I have grave concern in terms of the politicization of that review, and I would like to ask the minister and have his guarantee, considering it is politicized, considering he has basically absolved himself of any responsibility and absolved his department of any responsibility, I would like his guarantee that there is no witch hunt going on in that department right now to find a scapegoat for this lack of action on the minister's part. Can he guarantee there is no witch hunt going on in the Department of Education so that somebody else can be blamed when it is this minister who should bear a lot of responsibility for what is going on?

Mr. Bjornson: The member raises a number of issues in the preamble, and I would like to address some of those.

First of all, the member mentioned that, I believe it was the member from Russell who was acting in the capacity of Minister of Education who said that he met on a monthly basis with the Public Schools Finance Board. That certainly was his prerogative as minister at the time if he wanted to meet with an arm's-length body of the government. He could meet with them on a monthly basis, and that was his prerogative.

* (15:00)

I know that I have been meeting with a lot of stakeholders and visiting a lot of schools, over 160 schools that I visited as minister, over 25 school visits in my capacity as MLA, over 60 meetings with stakeholders in my tenure. So I meet with a lot of different organizaton on a lot of different issues, and I will continue to do so.

Personally, I do not think it is appropriate that I meet frequently with an arm's-length organization of government. We are dealing with an issue where we have duly elected trustees. We have an independent body, arm's-length organization in the Public Schools Finance Board, and we have to determine how this has unfolded as that is the intent of the review. I would take exception to the suggestion that the terms of reference are politicized. I think the terms of reference will get to the heart of the issue. I am very confident that all questions that need to be asked will be asked, and the review will show us where this has transpired, where this has gone wrong.

I am the first to admit, as I admitted in Estimates and I admitted in the House and I admitted in the scrum, that I should have asked more questions. The allegations were very specific, and the response I received when we vetted the allegations through the process was quite vague. I will be the first to admit that I should have asked more questions. Right now, we are asking all those questions. The process is one that we will get all the answers, and we will do so by June 2.

Mrs. Driedger: I do not see how the minister can expect anybody to have faith in that. He turned a blind eye to the allegations that came forward a year ago. He did absolutely nothing except sort of pass the buck on to the Public Schools Finance Board. He says he understands the act. He knows The Public Schools Act. If he knew the act, then he should have immediately, when he passed that letter of allegations, or that e-mail of allegations, on to the Public Schools Finance Board, should have said, "There is illegal activity going on here. Investigate it and come back to me in one week with what you have found."

Does the minister not see where he bumbled this issue by just washing his hands of it, passing it on and then forgetting it even existed?

Mr. Bjornson: As I said, and I will say it again, the allegations were very specific. The information I received in response was very ambiguous and, in retrospect, I should have asked more questions. Having said that, we are now engaged in a process where all those questions will be asked and all those questions will be answered.

Mrs. Driedger: But not all of the questions are going to be answered because the minister is not looking at how he dropped the ball on the issue. So how can he try to allude that all of the questions to this will be answered?

And he is right. The allegations, when they came forward, were very clear. You do not have to be a brain surgeon to have figured out that illegal activity was going on, if the minister knew the act. The minister was negligent in his handling of that particular allegation that was sent forward. He should have demanded more. By basically absolving himself of any responsibility in that issue and not including himself or his department in it, he has basically washed his hands of taking ministerial responsibility.

I will ask the minister as well, going back to a question he has not answered a few minutes ago, this new area where the high school is going in is called River Ridge. Why, during Estimates when we were bringing information forward to the minister–and part of that information also includes that real estate agents in that area were told to take bids on this property for residential development–does the minister not feel he has some responsibility and to turn around and talk to Brian O'Leary and find out were they in further land development in the beginning stages of it until they got caught? Did the minister not feel that he should direct his department to put those questions forward to Mr. O'Leary?

Mr. Bjornson: In response to this issue, all school divisions–all school divisions–were advised of the protocol and the procedures around the disposition of property. In response to this issue, we are asking all the necessary questions to address the concerns that are specific to the situation in the Seven Oaks School Division.

Mrs. Driedger: That is a very unsatisfactory answer because they got caught. If they did not get caught, more things could be happening in River Ridge, for all we know, and I think taxpayers need some assurances.

A lot of money has been spent so far on Lombard North. David Palubeskie, who, in the eighties, certainly was a very good friend of the NDP, well known to this Premier (Mr. Doer), was involved in the 1980s related to the issue of land development in that same area that the Premier of this province was sued on.

Now it is this same person, Mr. Palubeskie, in that same vicinity that is again involved in land development, whose company has actually made, what we can track so far, a couple hundred thousand dollars. It could be going on. He is intimately involved as the developer for the Seven Oaks School Division, or the person that is pulling it together. He is the consultant for the Seven Oaks School Division. He is also marketing all of this property, and he is now involved not only with Swinford Park but now in River Ridge. This person was also very involved and a good NDP supporter in the eighties at the time there was some land development going on in that area, and then the Premier in that period of time got sued because of some of his involvement into that land development issue. So you can understand how there are some huge concerns.

The Seven Oaks School Division, since 2001 when they deliberately went into this not only to build a school but deliberately went in, according to their applications to the city, to build houses, Mr. Palubeskie was part of this right from the beginning. He has done very well by it through some very good NDP connections on the Public Schools Finance Board, Mr. O'Leary, all of whom have donated significant amounts of money to this party. They are all involved in this. So the minister has to appreciate why we have a bit of cynicism and concern about what is going on.

Do I believe that we are going to get to the bottom of this? Hardly, because of who is involved all around. So can the minister not see the need for an independent review? If he really wants to get to the bottom of this, will he not commit, and I will ask him again, will he not commit to an independent review of this Seven Oaks School Division illegal land development scheme?

Mr. Bjornson: I guess the member and I will agree to disagree because I do believe the review process that we have initiated will get to the bottom of this issue. I am satisfied with the credentials of all the people that will be engaged in this process. We have very capable staff who are going to be looking at this. Again, we are talking about a situation between an elected school board and an arm's-length organization of the government in the Public Schools Finance Board. The team that is assembled has very good credentials. We also have the opportunity to engage external supports as needed. I am very confident all the questions will be answered when this review is completed on or before June 2.

Mrs. Driedger: Has Mr. Farthing set up a committee to look at this, or is he basically asking people for their opinions? Is he the one doing the interviewing or is it Mr. Fortier? Are there others involved?

* (15:10)

Mr. Bjornson: Currently, I am aware that Mr. Fortier is part of this process and the deputy minister is leading this process as well. Again, tremendous credentials with the deputy minister, a PhD in economics, and had served on the schools finance branch from '95 to '99 under the Conservative government. He has impeccable credentials, and I am very confident the team that is being assembled to address this issue will do an excellent job in addressing this issue.

Mrs. Driedger: I do not have any problem with the credentials of the people involved because I do agree with the minister that there are some very good staff with very credible credentials. It is the political interference that could be going on behind the scenes that I am far more concerned about. This government has a track record of that, and I have been the brunt of some of that. I know what I am talking about. It would be political interference that I would have some huge concerns about, not the credentials of the people in his department because they are very credible. They are very well educated and they are very talented.

The minister just mentioned a team that is put together. As the minister, I am sure he would have asked Mr. Farthing who was on that team. Considering what this minister has had to answer to in the last few weeks, any minister, I am sure, would have wanted to be very well versed. Clayton Manness would never have walked in here without knowing exactly what was going on in every area. He would never have walked in, nor would other ministers have walked in, with such a lack of information and knowledge about what is going on in his department, as this minister has demonstrated in the last few weeks.

I will ask the minister again. He just mentioned there is a team set up and I would like to ask him who is on that team.

Mr. Bjornson: As I said, the deputy has been asked to lead this process and Mr. Fortier is one that has been engaged in that process. It is kind of interesting that the member is suggesting there is political interference and then advocating that I should be a lot more hands-on in the process. I find that a little curious that the member would be suggesting I should be right in there in the middle of things when I am very confident in the credentials of the individuals that are leading this review, and I am confident that all the questions will be answered on or before June 2.

Mrs. Driedger: The minister is misconstruing what I am saying. I am not asking for him to interfere. I am asking for him to gather information and to demonstrate his leadership by making sure the kinds of things that need to be looked into are being looked into.

In fact, this minister seems to have the view that he will just say to his deputy, go and investigate. This minister did not even put forward the terms of reference. That is his job to dictate to his deputy what he wanted to see in that review. This minister did not even know what to ask for. He just basically washed his hands of this as he has of every issue. No wonder, Mr. Chairperson, that there are people watching this minister in action.

The minister should be aware, and I have said it to him before, people think he is a puppet. People think his strings are being pulled. He is demonstrating that time after time because he is not showing any leadership in terms of directing his department. That is his job. It is his job to say the terms of reference should be more inclusive. The terms of reference should be this or that.

Will he today commit to asking his staff to find out if there had been any initial activity by the Seven Oaks School Division in getting into further residential development in River Ridge? Would he be prepared, or brave enough, and showing enough leadership and accountability, to go out and find out why a real estate agent would be saying they were told to take bids on this property for housing development on property owned by the Seven Oaks School Division? The minister should be concerned enough about that. I am asking him would he commit today to follow up on that, find out. Was Seven Oaks School Division in the initial stages of any further residential land development in the River Ridge area?

Mr. Bjornson: Once again, I am hearing that you should not politically interfere, but you should know everybody that is on the team. I am hearing that do not politically interfere, but demand that you have the terms of reference and you develop the terms of reference. So I am really confused as to what exactly the member is asking for with respect to the minister politically interfering, but how dare the minister politically interfere. This is really a confusing line of questioning, Mr. Chair.

With respect to the process, again I am very confident in the credentials of the staff who are going to be conducting this review. I am very confident they will be seeking expertise from outside of the department as needed and they are going to get to the bottom of this issue. Yes, I am concerned that the school division has been engaged in this process. That is why we are going to have a very thorough review of how this has transpired. I am also the first to admit, and I will admit it again that I should have asked more questions a year ago. We are going to be asking all those questions now and we will get to the bottom of the issue.

Mrs. Driedger: It is interesting that the minister is asking his staff to do the review. This minister asked his staff to put together the terms of reference. Are these the same staff that withheld the legal opinion from him from the beginning of February until about March 8? Are these the same staff?

Mr. Bjornson: Again, the review is going to get to the bottom of all these issues. It is going to get to the bottom of all of these issues.

Mrs. Driedger: How can the review get to the bottom of it when the minister is not investigating those staff who withheld from him that legal opinion? Somebody had that legal opinion, and besides the Public Schools Finance Board, people in his department had the legal opinion that land development was illegal. This minister was not given that information until everything hit the fan in Question Period. Are these the same staff who are going to be investigating this situation?

Mr. Bjornson: Once again, we have inconsistencies from the member opposite. Earlier, she was saying, "Is there going to be a witch hunt?" Now she is saying, "There should be a witch hunt." The member opposite does not seem to know what she wants. What we want is a review that is going to get to the bottom of this issue and we are engaged in that process.

Mrs. Driedger: Can the minister tell us if illegal land development is occurring today in the Swinford Park area?

Mr. Bjornson: As I have said in Estimates, and I will repeat it in the House now, our concern is that no actions are taken, and that the school division act within the parameters of the law, no actions are taken in such a way that will adversely affect the taxpayers. That is the position we are taking on this issue right now. We are going to be reviewing how many of the decisions are made around this issue.

Mrs. Driedger: The minister did not care for the last few years that $2 million of taxpayer money was put into building a fence, building roads and putting sewers in there. Why was he not concerned then when he got the allegations a year ago about taxpayers' money going into land development? Why did he not wake up then and address the issue? All of a sudden now he is so righteously concerned. Can he explain that?

* (15:20)

Mr. Bjornson: Again, when we were in the Estimates process, the former Minister of Education acknowledged there is a process that once allegations are brought forward, the allegations are vetted through the appropriate personnel within the department, or arm's-length organizations that would be appropriate for that purpose. That is how I responded to the allegations. That was the process the member from Russell had said, "Yes, I am aware of the process and how it works." That is what I did.

Mrs. Driedger: So the minister, by basically indicating that he has to worry about the legalities that the school division might face now if this activity was stopped, basically he is saying that illegal activity is still continuing under his watch. He is basically condoning it because he is too worried about the other legal aspects to it. Well, maybe the school division should just sell the land immediately to the developers and let them continue, which was the deal in the first place.

Mr. O'Leary said to the media at the beginning of May that he had a deal with the private contractors that he was not going to develop the land. He was acquiring it, but he had an agreement with them, so he broke the agreement with the private contractors in the area, who would be the people that could do this.

Why would the minister not have directed the Seven Oaks School Division to just sell the land? Why are they allowed to hang onto it and continue this illegal activity?

Mr. Bjornson: We are not going to act in a way that will adversely affect the taxpayers.

Mrs. Driedger: But the minister is flagrantly breaking the law then himself, or condoning it. How can the minister of the Crown have any credibility as a minister? The Justice Minister is sitting right there. Maybe he should have a chat with his Justice Minister because the Minister of Education is sending out an awful, awful message to Manitobans because every day that goes by he is condoning the breaking of a significant law in The Public Schools Act, the whole act that directs education in this province. The minister, day by day, until when we do not know, is going to allow this to continue until phase 3 Grady Bend is fully developed?

How long is the minister going to sit there and condone law breaking?

Mr. Bjornson: As I have said before, we are going to act in the best interests of the taxpayers. Members opposite, throughout the nineties we saw their funding of schools and how that impacted the taxpayers: Neepawa, 86.1% increase in taxes; Borderland, 89.4% increase in taxes; Altona, 172% increase. We are not going to act in a way that is going to adversely affect the taxpayers when members opposite's policy and funding of education had a tremendous impact on taxpayers.

Mrs. Driedger: The Minister of Education, by ignoring this allegation that came forward a year ago, was contemptuous of taxpayers because what has been going on over the last few years in the Seven Oaks School Division is a continual raising of the education property taxes, as well as the lowest amount of funding per child in education.

Now the minister can sit here and spew forward his rhetoric about protecting taxpayers. Where has he been while the Seven Oaks School Division has been spending $2 million of taxpayers' money already? Maybe more, how do we know? That is what is on the record. And he was not concerned when he got that letter of allegation last May, so what about the taxpayers over the last year? The minister basically thumbed his nose at them because he had an opportunity to protect taxpayers, and he had an opportunity for the children to have better funding per child. Yet it was not important then for him to do anything. Now he says he cannot do anything: "I have to allow illegal activity to continue. I have to condone it." [interjection]

Well, there is a little chirping going on behind me from a little bird from Selkirk that is jumping to the defence of his colleague.

An Honourable Member: They are both drowning in the lake.

Mrs. Driedger: Yes, they are both drowning in the rhetoric that is going on here in the mishandling of this issue. The minister certainly has been contemptuous of taxpayers in this whole issue, but negligent in his handling of a very serious allegation that came forward. How is it the minister can be left out of the investigation when, in fact, a year ago it was he who did not do anything with the allegations that came forward? Now he can actually have the gall to sit in here and say," Now I am worried about taxpayers." How does that work?

Mr. Bjornson: As a teacher in the system in the nineties, I saw a lot of contempt for the taxpayers when the funding announcements reflected the commitment of the Tory administration to the public school system. Just to remind the member opposite, Steinbach had a 184.2% increase in taxes during their tenure; 230.9 percent in the Interlake, a farming community; 129.9% increase in Lakeshore; 147.4 percent in the home of the bird from Selkirk, in the Lord Selkirk School Division; 88.5 percent in Mountain View; 81.4 percent in Pine Creek; 171.3 percent in Prairie Rose. Now, if that is not contempt for taxpayers by absolving themselves of responsibility to be the funders for the public school system, I do not know what is, Mr. Chair, and I am really quite concerned that the policy of members opposite had done incredible, almost irreparable damage to the school system.

In fact, their contempt was not just for the taxpayers. Their contempt was for the profession. Their contempt was for the children of our province when they were making funding announcements that they made. Here we are on the anniversary of 10 years ago with the funding announcement of zero and 243 teachers, a record number of teachers, given pink slips. I do not need to take any–well, I will watch my language. I do not need lectures about contempt for taxpayers when that was nothing but contempt when you consider the policies around education funding and when you consider the platform for members opposite and their commitment to education funding, an announcement of, I believe, they planned a 1% increase in funding to education. That was part of their platform about how we could sustain the education system.

The member also talks about funding per pupil. We have one of the highest funding-per-pupil contributions of any jurisdiction in Canada, and that is because of our efforts in the last six years to increase funding to the public school system by $129.8 million compared to $15.2 under the previous five years prior to our election to government.

Mr. Maguire: I would just like to ask the minister if he was not the one–

Mr. Chairperson: Order. Please take your seat.

Mr. Maguire: My error was that I was in the wrong chair, I guess, and now I am in my seat in the Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, I think the mistakes that have been pointed out to me by the list that the member just gave me is a bit more of a concern to Manitobans. Often in this House we chastise this government for not knowing what is going on outside the Perimeter Highway, and here are a couple of really good reasons and examples as to their lack of geography and understanding of the situations in those areas.

* (15:30)

I have to, first of all, thank the minister for the list of schools he provided me with that I asked for, new schools, replacement schools, additions, renovations, that sort of thing. I just want to draw to the minister's attention the replacement school he announced here in '04-05 for Carberry Collegiate that he talked about yesterday. Beautiful Plains School Division is not in the constituency. It was just a correction. I am sure it is just an oversight on behalf of the government, but it is kind of a big issue for the people that live in those areas. Carberry Collegiate is not in the Carman constituency, as reported in this listing. It is part of Turtle Mountain now and that constituency.

There are other mistakes. I just have to defend Virden in regard to my home town now. I know the members from Brandon like to take a lot of credit for things that are going, but this is another prime example of how they have lost control completely. They have actually got Virden Collegiate listed under Brandon right now. They did not even put Brandon East or West. So I want to correct the record and advise the minister that Virden Collegiate is in the constituency of Arthur-Virden and always will be. The people in those areas understand they rank way down the list of responsibilities that this government wants to look after.

I think there are others on here as well that I see that have errors, but I am only going to point out those two as the major ones, particularly because I was the one that pointed out the need to the minister at the time for the Carberry Collegiate and called for its construction to get going in those areas.

Just two quick questions, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the Deloraine Collegiate. Now that the minister has given me the sheet that looks at the fact that in 2002-2003 that school was awarded and it is in a tender position, can he indicate to me when that tender is expected to be accepted? What is the termination date of the tender?

Mr. Bjornson: It is the school division that brings the tender forward. You could contact the school division for that information.

Mr. Maguire: I notice that others announced, subsequent to that area, have sketch plans, working drawings, a number of other areas. This school is now in tender so I am assuming those working drawings, sketch plans and everything had been done in that area. Can the minister confirm that?

Mr. Bjornson: What I can confirm is what stage the project is at. When it says sketch plans, I cannot confirm if indeed the sketch plans are complete. When it says working drawings, I cannot confirm whether or not those working drawings are complete. That is the stage the project is currently at.

Mr. Maguire: I just want to ask another question in regard to the Seven Oaks situation. The member from Charleswood has been doing a commendable job in trying to bring the minister to some form of credibility in this issue, or accountability, I should say, his complete lack of credibility. I want to ask him if it had not been for her hard work in regard to this issue, if he would have ever brought it forward.

Mr. Bjornson: When the issue was raised for the first time in the House, I was advised that the PSFB had indeed sought a legal opinion and received a legal opinion. They were in the process of going through a process where they were looking at the legal opinion and the land management document. They were looking at them together. They were going to advise me accordingly of what the outcomes of that process were.

Mr. Maguire: Did he determine then that an internal review should be done?

Mr. Bjornson: I determined on that Monday that we should engage in the 30-day review process to see how this particular situation has unfolded.

Mr. Maguire: Who did he put in charge of it, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Bjornson: As I have said, I asked my deputy minister to take the lead on this review process.

Mr. Maguire: Did he instruct his deputy minister to deal with a certain number of individuals, or did he advise them on any other persons that should be a part of that process?

Mr. Bjornson: I asked the deputy minister to establish the terms of reference and to assign the appropriate personnel to conduct the review.

Mrs. Driedger: Can the minister tell us what is happening with teachers' pensions? They had the card campaign, and there was a pension task force thrown together very quickly right around that time. I would like to ask the minister what progress there is on looking at teachers' pensions from all aspects of the pension. Where is this at?

Mr. Bjornson: The teacher Pension Task Force was not thrown together. The teacher Pension Task Force has been around for quite some time. The teacher Pension Task Force has been responsible for a number of recommendations that have been brought forward that we have enacted in legislation around teacher pension.

The teacher pension issue remains an active file where what we have done in the three times that we have opened up the act, of course, we have allowed a window of opportunity to purchase past periods of maternity leave as pensionable service. We have recognized part-time service as continuous for the purpose of qualifying for the pension. We have enabled teachers to purchase future periods of adoptive leave on a cost-shared basis with government. We have allowed retired teachers to purchase past periods of maternity leave on a cost-shared basis with government and eliminated pension premiums for teachers on disability.

As well, of course, as the members are aware, in 2000-2001, we introduced a plan to address the unfunded pension liability in the Teachers' Retirement Allowances Fund. These are the things that we have done. Yes, there has been a very good advocacy campaign by the teachers. The teachers' Pension Task Force is the body that does make the recommendations, and the file remains active.

Mrs. Driedger: The teachers were telling me this task force–perhaps, it did not meet very often before, but what I was led to believe was that they were brought together fairly quickly. Right around the time we brought the issue up in the House, the card campaign started. I guess what they are telling us is that, at the time this card campaign came about, they only had about one or two meetings. I do not know if any further meetings have been held, but certainly they were looking at legislative changes because that was the only avenue open to them. I was going to ask the minister is he going down the road of looking at legislative change. If he is, when is he going to do that?

Mr. Bjornson: Once again, the file remains active.

Mrs. Driedger: I do not know why the minister feels he has to skate around a pretty straightforward question. Is he looking at legislative change?

Mr. Bjornson: No. As the member knows, because of the legislation, if there were any changes to be made to The Teachers' Pensions Act, then there would have to be legislative change. But the file remains active at this time.

Mrs. Driedger: The minister perhaps could tell us. Is he planning on bringing in legislative changes to address the concerns of the teachers?

* (15:40)

Mr. Bjornson: I believe the member knows the process, and we are engaged in the process. As I said, the file remains active. The teachers' Pension Task Force makes recommendations, and that is the process we are engaged in.

Mrs. Driedger: What recommendations have they made to the minister after this card campaign?

Mr. Bjornson: Again, we are engaged in the process. With respect to the specifics, that has not been finalized.

Mrs. Driedger: Can I ask the minister why he is afraid to answer the question?

Mr. Bjornson: I am not afraid to answer the question. As the member knows, if there are going to be changes made to the teachers' pension, we have to do it by active legislation. There have been meetings and we are continuing to consult. We do have a teachers' Pension Task Force, that is the process. When the recommendations are brought forward, then we act on the recommendations that are appropriate to act on. That is the process.

Mrs. Driedger: The operating funds that the government provides for education in 1999-2000 was 61 percent, and they have now dropped to 56 percent. With all of the money flowing into this government, can I ask the minister why he has decreased operating support to schools?

Mr. Bjornson: As I have said, we have increased funding to the tune of $129.8 million. With respect to the per people support, that is a significant increase of over 16 percent to the per people support. With respect to the true cost of the delivery of education in Manitoba, we actually fund over 70 percent of that true cost when you take into consideration all the other factors such as capital, such as pension liability and the operating grant. By increasing the property tax credit, there needs to be more transparency as we have indicated on the property tax credit.

People recognize that is, indeed, a provincial property tax credit that goes against the cost of education taxes to the homeowner and that property tax credit will be forwarded directly to the school divisions as opposed to going through the process where it is forwarded to the municipalities and then to the school divisions. So that actually reflects more than 60 percent, I believe 64 percent of operating costs when you factor in the property tax credit which we have increased.

Again, the real issue is the affordable, predictable and sustainable funding we have been providing as a government, $129.8 million more in the base funding compared to the 15.2 million that was provided over the same period by the previous government.

We stand by our record that we have provided affordable, predictable funding for school divisions and we have provided meaningful tax relief. Again, where property taxes went up significantly during the nineties and property values were flat, we now see a reverse in the trend where property taxes are relatively flat and values have gone up significantly. I think our commitment to education is very clear.

Mrs. Driedger: I would like to say to the minister that the real issue is the serious offloading by this government onto the school divisions over the past six years, and this government forcing the school divisions to do their dirty work for them by continuing to have to increase property taxes, and then they look like the bad guys out there rather than this government. They are taking all the flak from the public.

The minister talked about wanting to see transparency, and yet he is the first one out the door talking about, "Well, we fund 70 percent." I do not know if he thinks Manitobans do not know what is going on and are not intelligent, but I mean if he wants transparency, then he should be talking about operating costs when he is being asked about operating costs, and not try to throw in the capital and the pensions and the kitchen sink to make it look better than it is.

If the minister really wants to look ministerial and talk about accountability, then he really needs to be much more straight up with his responses that yes, they have dropped funding in terms of the percentage of operating. Yes, they continue to put money into education, but it is now only 56 percent of operating.

I would like to ask the minister how he determines–they gave 2.8 percent this year–does he determine that number by the rate of economic growth or the rate of inflation. He is on record as saying both.

Mr. Bjornson: No, we determined it on the rate of economic growth and our increase in funding based on rate of economic growth has exceeded inflation. But the member also talks about operating costs, and we can look at a couple of examples of where operating costs have gone up significantly. School divisions are large consumers of communications equipment such as the Manitoba Telephone System, and I know their costs have gone up about 68 percent in the last few years. That is one example.

School divisions are also large consumers of gas as they transport students, a number of students, in rural areas. Certainly, we are all concerned about the price of gasoline and diesel prices have gone up significantly as well, so that has had a tremendous impact. These are a couple of issues that are obviously going to impact the budgets for school divisions. We have taken some measures in our adjustments for funding around transportation to help address the increased costs in gasoline.

There is certainly another factor, I must point out, and I will repeat that is the support per pupil has increased over 16 percent. That, in itself, is a very significant contribution to support our children. We have also increased funding to special needs by over 24 percent in our tenure.

The member talks about offloading responsibility and making school boards do dirty work. I have had a déjà vu here as someone who was in the classroom in the 1990s. The members of the former Tory government actually introduced a piece of legislation that said, "School divisions, if you want to save money, you can lock teachers out for as many as 10 days." Talk about doing dirty work.

They did not put a value on the professional development and the need for administration days. Yes, I see the member from Portage la Prairie saying, "Oh, we never did that," and I commend him for that. I am glad they did not do that in Portage la Prairie, but there were several school divisions that opted to do that and that was at the expense of much needed professional development. I myself was in my third year teaching. We were trying to deal with issues around safety in the schools which were largely ignored by the members opposite, when we as teachers were lobbying the government to have the government of the day address the issues of bullying and school safety, but nothing happened. We were denied professional development to deal with those issues, so talk about dirty work.

The dirty work that was done in Evergreen School Division where I taught involved me personally being locked out for 15 days. Myself, along with 108 colleagues, in 1993 and 1994. Oh, pardon me, by 1994, we were down to 106 colleagues because two teachers ended up getting laid off, even though the enrolment had not gone down.

So, if you want to talk about dirty work, the offloading of the responsibility in funding education back in the 1990s had school divisions giving unprecedented raises and taxes and engaged in a process where teachers were being punished because the government was not providing sufficient funding. There is a double-edged sword there.

Again, we have made our commitment to fund at the rate of economic growth. Our costs are certainly beyond our control, but we are working with our partners when we have the funding of schools committee meet to decide other areas where we can help make improvements in how we fund schools including the enrolment change support, including class-size grants, including a variety of different initiatives we are working toward making our schools more effective in dealing with a lot of the challenges our schools face.

Mrs. Driedger: Well, if the NDP did not raid Hydro and force Hydro to have to increase rates by 10 percent, does the minister think they could have held back or held down some of those school costs?

Mr. Bjornson: We equalized the Hydro rates for all Manitobans. We still have the lowest Hydro rates, I believe, in North America. We are faced, as I said, as big consumers of technology and communications in the public school system, a 68% increase in bills for school divisions. Of course, they operate during peak hours where there are not too many plans where you get free calling after six, unfortunately.

* (15:50)

School divisions have faced huge increases in their communications costs. School divisions are huge consumers of communications costs. We will continue to own Hydro as long as we are in government, and it benefits all Manitobans. We know that those 68% increases in costs for MTS have only benefited a few.

Mrs. Driedger: Looking at per-pupil funding, K to S4, in 1998-99 it was about $7,800, well, $7,865 a pupil. Then, in the NDP's first year, in 2000-01 it went down a thousand dollars per pupil to $6,800. Then, in '02-03, it went back up a little bit to $7,200.

I would ask the minister what it is now. I do not have any further numbers in terms of where it ended up in '03-04 and '04-05. In 1998-1999, was the minister aware we were funding students to the tune of $7,800 per student?

Mr. Bjornson: I am sorry, I will have to make sure, per pupil funding. Oh, I am sorry. This is not the number I am looking for right now. Just bear with me for a moment. The cost per pupil, '04-05, was $8,117, cumulative from '02-03 to '04-05, a 14.7% increase.

Mrs. Driedger: Of the 38 school divisions, can the minister tell us how many raised their special levies this year?

Mr. Bjornson: I am sorry, I do not have that number in front of me. But I do know that many school divisions' taxes were flat as a result of the decrease in the ESL for $30 million that were reduced from the provincially levied ESL.

I will find out exactly how many school divisions did raise their taxes. Again, some divisions, even though they did raise their taxes, the taxes are relatively flat because of our initiative in the $30-million reduction in the ESL.

Mrs. Driedger: According to the numbers we were able to pull up, either through reading the papers or making some phone calls, it was showing that only two school divisions did not increase property taxes and all the rest did. I would appreciate, if the minister does have an actual document that his department has put together on what their taxes were for this past year, if the minister would table that at the next round of Estimates.

Mr. Bjornson: Yes, I will table that information. It is public information. I would hope the member from Charleswood also considers the impact that the $30-million reduction in the ESL would have on the bottom line for taxes, as it is a significant reduction to the bottom line. As I said, taxes are essentially flat as a result of that initiative.

Mrs. Driedger: I will commend the government for moving in the direction of bringing down property taxes. That was an election promise that we made in the last election, very popular. It is the right way to go, to move away from the archaic funding system that we have in place now. Manitoba could be a leader in this country to take that issue on. With the unprecedented amount of money that has flowed into this province in the last few years, it is too bad the NDP did not have that as more of a priority because they really lost probably their only golden opportunity to really do something with that, which would have been an incredible kick-start for this province. I think we have a government that has a hard time managing money and very questionable priority setting. What we see now is a real lost opportunity to have made a difference in Manitoba's economy.

I am glad the NDP recognized what is probably a simmering revolt out there in terms of taxpayers' annoyance at property taxes, and the fact that we have the highest property taxes west of, what is it, New Brunswick now. It is a serious deterrent in many ways in terms of moving this province forward. I am glad the NDP followed up on where we were going and the push that we have given them in that direction. I hope they will continue. I am looking forward to hearing more from this minister in terms of his plan and his vision for that, but I will come back to that another time.

I would like to ask the minister did all the amalgamated budgets still need his approval this year.

Mr. Bjornson: The plan was to review them for three years, and after three years, they no longer needed to submit.

Mrs. Driedger: Was this the final year for the ministerial approval of those budgets?

Mr. Bjornson: I believe so.

Mrs. Driedger: As one of the school divisions that were forced to amalgamate, and it has had a tremendous tax impact on my area by forcing the Pembina, well, the Assiniboine South School Division to amalgamate with Fort Garry. Taxpayers took a huge hit in my area.

For the minister to have to turn to a former, former Minister of Education to get the answer as to is this the last year of me having to approve amalgamated budgets, I think shame on the minister. That just shows you his lack of understanding about what forced amalgamation has done to a lot of these school divisions, or even his lack of understanding about the whole issue. I am amazed the minister would not have had a better handle on that. He has been in the department long enough that those should have been some of the questions he should readily be able to answer.

With all of the school divisions that were forced to amalgamate and then had to increase taxes this year, the minister would have had to give his approval for that. Did he then give them approval this year in those school divisions that were forced to amalgamate? Did he give them approval to increase taxes this year?

* (16:00)

Mr. Bjornson: First of all, with respect to the amalgamation process, as the member knows, in 1994, I believe, the Boundaries Review Commission was established to look at how we could move toward modernization of our schools. That sat on the shelf for a number of years until we, as a government, took a serious look at it and how we could move forward and modernize our schools. That was a process we were engaged in, and I have to tip my hat to my predecessors for the work they have done in this regard.

There are incredible testimonials from educational partners on the positive effect that amalgamation has had. Certainly, there have been a lot of benefits where students are able to access programs that were not sustainable under the previous format with the number of school divisions that were not able to sustain or afford programs because they were not viable in smaller divisions. So amalgamation achieved a number of the desirable outcomes with respect to how we could make our schools better places for our students.

There has been a tremendous amount of feedback after we have engaged in that process in how school divisions reinvented themselves and how school divisions moved forward to provide better services and better opportunities for our students. Amalgamation certainly moved us in the right direction in that regard.

There are a number of issues around amalgamation that have provided–oh, I am sorry, I am getting a signal that my time is up.

Mr. Chairperson: By previous agreement of the House, the hour being 4 p.m., committee rise.