Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. 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 Decentralization. Does the honourable Minister of Rural Development have an opening statement?
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): No, Sir, I do not.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: No? Thank you. Does the honourable critic have an opening statement?
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just like to ask the minister a few questions on the--
An Honourable Member: Pertinent questions.
Mr. Clif Evans: Pertinent questions, yes, on Decentralization. As we see in the Estimates that there really has not been any activity in Decentralization for the last couple of years. Well, I see on page 8 that there is no financial information provided for '95-96. It seems as Decentralization is at a standstill, with the Expected Results, they are saying that, as requested, for Appropriation (27)4. is expected to be sufficient to cover expenses related to Decentralization '96-97. What are the plans for Decentralization for '96-97?
Mr. Derkach: To begin with Decentralization, as was committed by the government, has been fulfilled in terms of the numbers of positions that we had indicated that would be decentralized. There are still some communities which commitments were made to that we are working with to try and identify positions that can be relocated and completed.
(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
These outstanding communities, of course, are ones where we have found we had a bit of a challenge to relocate parts of government to because, as the member knows, we have gone through a significant downsizing of the civil service in government. That certainly has impacted on the number of people and positions that can be decentralized to rural communities. By and large, I would say that the effort has been very positive in terms of the communities that have received decentralization positions and also in terms of the goal that was set for moving positions into rural Manitoba.
I guess for 1996-97, or this fiscal year, we are looking at completing the commitments that were made to the communities that we made commitments to in the beginning.
Mr. Clif Evans: Would the minister by letter or by correspondence just provide me with the information as to the communities that he is committed to, the department is committed to, for decentralization jobs?
Mr. Derkach: I guess the foremost active communities that are looking for decentralization at this point in time are Emerson, Gladstone, Glenboro and Hamiota. These are the ones where there is some activity going on presently. I should also tell the member that the initiative is ongoing. In other words, when we identify positions in government that can be decentralized, we will be matching those positions up with communities that have not received any positions from Decentralization and trying to fill to the letter our commitment to them.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Clif Evans: I just want to make a comment on this. As I made my comments to the minister during the Rural Development Estimates on how important the rural economy is, of course, and trying to gain some strength and with what is happening, as he is saying, about the downsizing that his government has been initiating for the last couple of years, I feel and we feel very strongly the fact that perhaps the government and Rural Development should in fact be taking a stronger initiative to provide the services and the jobs in rural Manitoba through decentralization. It is a tragedy that in some departments that are being downsized in rural areas, instead of providing the jobs and the services in some rural areas, we are not getting this, and because of the downsizing, that perhaps we are losing positions, or the efforts of the different departments to take away services.
I feel that perhaps we should be doing a little bit more when it comes to decentralization, or as much as possible, to enhance our rural communities and maintain the services and expand the services that we have and should have.
Mr. Derkach: I guess I could begin by telling the member that in 1990 our commitment was to relocate 693 positions into 62 communities. As of March 1995, we had relocated 670 positions to 61 communities.
I think that is a significant step in trying to bring services to the part of our province that traditionally and historically has not had the services delivered from. I think that is a major accomplishment for the government in Manitoba when you look at the size of our civil service and the fact that we have been over the course of the last eight years attempting to bring our financial house into order, and I think that has now been accomplished, as well. So even though government was downsizing and government was reallocating resources, we were able to do a significant task in terms of contributing to the rural economy by moving out almost 700 positions into rural Manitoba.
I might say that I agree with the member in terms of the importance of initiatives like decentralization and trying to stimulate the rural economy. However, and I have told this to communities time and time again, we cannot rely on government to do everything for communities. Communities have to basically take the initiative by themselves if they are going to revitalize their communities and stay afloat, but it does not help when a colleague of the honourable critic's makes a suggestion that we should be moving a plant from Portage la Prairie to the city of Winnipeg when, indeed, all that would do is lose another 40 jobs or 35 jobs in a rural community.
Our goal is to work with those initiatives and to try and preserve those jobs in the communities that they are in, so I appreciate the fact that my honourable friend believes very truthfully in rural Manitoba, but he needs to also convince his colleagues that they have to have the same attitude, as well.
Mr. Clif Evans: I thank the minister for that comment. It is the second time I have heard that, I believe.
The 669 jobs that have been allocated, decentralized, to the 61 communities, are all 669 jobs still there? All these positions, are they still in the communities?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairman, we have not done an audit of the jobs to see whether every single job is still there. I believe, by and large, some of them have even been increased. I know that in a couple of Decentralization initiatives I have had contact with in the last year, they have indicated to me that they have increased the numbers of staff in their offices, so what the net effect is I am not sure. That is perhaps something that I could get for the member, but it is not something that I have at my fingertips right now.
* (1130)
While I have the floor, Mr. Chairman, I would like to also highlight for the member the economic benefits that have occurred as a result of decentralization. First of all, besides the additional jobs, there is something like $26 million in direct payroll that has now been transferred to rural Manitoba and is now being enjoyed by people who are working in rural Manitoba. About $9.1 million of new construction activity, creating 3,500 weeks of work have resulted from the decentralization initiative. Now if you look at that for the impact on the rural economy, that is fairly significant in itself in terms of the construction industry and also in terms of the rentals that now are going to be coming in to either people who own these buildings or in fact to the rural communities themselves and the taxes that are being paid on those buildings as well. About $3.8 million in tenant improvements, 90 percent of which was done using local tradespeople. Now these are local people who found opportunities because the government decided to decentralize. About $1.97 million in annual lease payments which I have referenced before are now being paid in rural communities. There are spin-off benefits that have occurred in all of these communities, which are significant, and I know the member supports that, and he has indicated that through many of his comments.
I certainly appreciate that, and we need to continue to work to find opportunities where they make sense, to decentralize to rural Manitoba, and that is our commitment. Where a unit in government makes sense to be decentralized to a rural setting, we will continue to do that, but it is not an initiative that we are driving from the Department of Rural Development. We are not going about it in the way that we did in the beginning where we went to departments and asked for initiatives to be identified that could be decentralized. That phase is over. Today we are working on an ongoing basis whereas, when we see areas that can be decentralized, we will do that.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate from the minister some sort of report and audit as to the positions that they have decentralized and whether they are still there, how many are still there, and if any have been lost or cut back as the minister indicated earlier because of government restraint.
An Honourable Member: Rightsizing.
Mr. Clif Evans: I certainly just want to also put on record that, of course being a little biased with Interlake constituency, there are positions that could be sent out there. There is office space available in Arborg, and Fisher Branch and Moosehorn and Ashern, so I would hope that the minister will certainly work along with me if I do bring to his attention through departments to bring jobs out. I know that, and I strongly feel that there are situations in the departments of Natural Resources and Environment. I would hope the minister and I would encourage the minister to support some of the initiatives that I will be putting forward to these different departments to bring people, decentralized positions, out to these areas within the Department of Environment and in the Department of Natural Resources.
Being centralized with the problems and situations and issues that we have in that whole area, I think that it would be a great initiative to be able to get people to move out to that area to be able to provide the services, live in the communities and provide economic benefit, but also to have the services available in those two departments, I think specifically right now with what we are doing. I thank the minister for his information and look forward to further information and dealing with him on this.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairman, just to conclude, I thank the member for his comments. We will work with him and communities in rural Manitoba to do what we can to identify things that make sense to relocate, but I also have to ask him to encourage his colleagues to look at rural Manitoba in a more positive light. There is a tremendous amount of positive activity going on there. All you have to do is leave the Perimeter and go out there and take a look at what is happening. As a matter of fact, comments are now being made--I even heard them on OB radio--about the tremendous change in rural Manitoba and why is not happening here in the city. Well, I can tell you that communities have decided to take their own destiny in their hands and have come a long way.
Now it is not going to all happen overnight. We know that. We have to continue working in partnership with communities, with members on the opposite side of the House, to make these initiatives happen. I can tell you that the member from the Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) has been very co-operative in that regard, and I thank him for that. We will continue to work as hard as we can to ensure that rural Manitoba remains strong because, as rural Manitoba is strong, the city is strong, the entire province then is a strong province and one that we can promote outside the boundaries of this country.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chairman, in closing and a final comment on the lighter side of this, seeing that the Estimates book for Decentralization does not have a lot of pages in that, perhaps the minister will in future, when he does present his supplements for Decentralization, put all the typing in little larger type so that members could read it perhaps a lot easier without their glasses. Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, I do not know if I would be quite as generous in terms of gauging as how successful decentralization actually has been. A few years back, I can recall the government making the announcement out in Brandon, and there were quite a few people who were upset both in rural Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg, primarily because of the way in which this whole issue was handled from its beginning where you were taking individuals out of the city of Winnipeg, as opposed to working it in such a way that rural Manitobans would be filling vacant positions and trying to realign in different areas. There was quite a bit of criticism at the time. The bottom line in terms of percentage of government of Manitoba employees today working in rural Manitoba compared to a percentage back in 1988 would definitely be an interesting figure, and I would request that the minister--not today if he does not have the figure, but at some point--provide me that figure. It would be much appreciated.
I also wanted to point out to the minister that the Liberal Party is in favour of decentralization where it makes sense to do that. There has been some concern in terms of in the past--and I do not necessarily want to cite specifics at this point in time because I, too, would like to see this particular department pass--but areas in which, Mr. Chairperson, where it is somewhat questionable, and particularly in Education, on some of the decentralization that took place.
One would like to think that a minister does have some sort of conversations with the City of Winnipeg. Let us not necessarily neglect the City of Winnipeg in some of the discussions that occur for decentralization because it does have an impact on the city of Winnipeg. We want to make sure that all regions of the province are, in fact, treated with respect and a sense of fairness. That is, in essence, all that we are asking from the minister with respect to decentralization, and that is where it makes sense. If it is to the province as a whole's best interest to move an area into a rural community, then let us do that, and, in particular, if we can fill these positions with local, rural Manitobans because that should be a first priority, that should be done. Having said those few words, we are quite content to see it pass.
Mr. Derkach: Just in response, let me say that decentralization was an initiative that we consciously moved on. We understood right from the very beginning that we are not going to be creating new positions in rural Manitoba. These had to be decentralized from somewhere, and the logical place was of course the city of Winnipeg, because there was a disproportionate number of people employed by government who were in the city of Winnipeg as compared to the rest of rural Manitoba. So when we talk about equity and fairness, there was an adjustment that was being made through decentralization to ensure that rural Manitobans were receiving a fair share of employment opportunities and also services from government. So therefore it meant that we had to relocate some positions to rural Manitoba. In doing that, we tried to be as neutral as possible in terms of impact on individuals.
* (1140)
In most cases, we tried to redeploy people to other positions within the city if their families were living here, and if their life centred in the urban centre we tried to ensure that we respected that position of individuals. I might say that only one employee out of the entire decentralization initiative has not been redeployed to date. I think that is a fairly positive kind of result. It is unfortunate that one individual has not been redeployed, but in an overall sense that has worked fairly well.
Initially there was a lot of confusion and misunderstanding amongst the people who were going to be involved in decentralization, and that is why there was some negative feedback in the beginning. But I can tell you that I have not received one call from anyone who has been decentralized wanting to complain about the community they have been decentralized to or complain about the fact that they are not happy in that community. I think we have had two families that have decided to move back to the city as a result of decentralization.
I have received a lot of positive feedback from those individuals who have moved out to rural Manitoba who have said to me that they did not realize how beautiful some of these settings were, and the community life that they have come to enjoy has just really surpassed all of the negatives that they might have had about moving to a rural setting. So on an overall sense, it has been very positive.
On the economic side, the initiative cost us about $4.5 million in total. That is pretty small when you consider the impact that it has had on the rural economy. But besides that, the savings to government on an annual basis are about $523,000 annually. That results from things like accommodation costs which might be less in rural Manitoba, legal costs and all of those kinds of things that have reduced the cost of operations to government. So, by and large, the initiative I think has been a phenomenal success, if I could use that term, and, yes, there will always be little bumps and little glitches and little challenges that have to be turned into opportunity, but I think this was a challenge that was turned into a tremendous opportunity.
I agree with the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) that we need to be very conscious about the impact that we have on people's lives when we relocate them and that we try to work with them in a very humane and respectable way. We will continue to do that to ensure that we respect the dignity of people and the lives that they have created for themselves in the cities or when their positions come to be relocated, and we will continue to do that. Thank you very much.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I want to ask a number of questions to the minister just in terms of decentralization. I have always supported decentralization. In fact, successive governments have made efforts in terms of decentralization and notwithstanding some of the--there were a number of decentralizations that were paper decentralizations. By and large there were substantive jobs moved.
I mention that in the case of Manitoba Hydro when I found in my own community there were 30, 35 new jobs in Thompson, so I checked into it. Well, they were not in Thompson; in fact, the jobs did not change. What it was was the office in which these jobs were--these were basically for the Kelsey Dam previously listed as Winnipeg and then they list it as Thompson. There was not a single new job.
I say that because I think in the desire to make the numbers look good, I think in that case it was a bit of a disservice, because these numbers, by the way, are included in here, when in other cases there were substantive jobs moved. Energy and Mines is a good example in the case of my own community.
But what I would like to do is--and I have raised this question before in the civil service side, because I know in my own community, for example, if you net out those 35 that really did not create new jobs in the community, you are left with about 30 positions that were decentralized. Obviously, we lost other positions at the same time. In fact, there has been a sort of, a bit of a revolving door in the case of some jobs. Some jobs have been moved to other areas, so this is not really the net impact in my community.
I have raised this before with the Minister responsible for MTS. I pointed out in Question Period in the context of what is happening now with Manitoba Telephone System, that decentralization included the Crown corporations, and the reason the Crown corporations were included is because, obviously, we own the companies involved, and the government can have some influence over where those jobs are located.
I am extremely concerned about what is going to happen under the privatization of MTS, and I will tell you why. There are a number of reasons. There are a lot of local and regional offices throughout Manitoba in rural areas that I think we all understand could be in a position of potentially being subject to even direct closure.
There was a meeting that took place in Portage recently. It was a senior official of MTS there who indicated that as of 1997 under the new private company, basically he anticipates there will be closures. I think the minister knows what some of the concerns are because there are a lot of people who are concerned. We will have offices in Winnipeg. There is no doubt about that. The only thing in the bill that we have is that there is a guarantee of a head office in Manitoba, and I assume that will be in Winnipeg. It could be elsewhere in the province.
I assume there will be jobs in Brandon, and most people I talk to from the telephone system assume there will be jobs in Thompson, and there may be phone centre types of positions in other communities, but I want to run through some of the scenarios. The reason I want to raise this is in the hopes that--and we will continue the fight on the privatization at another time, but I do hope that there will be some effort to ensure the maintenance of employment in rural and northern communities with MTS. I consider that absolutely critical.
There are a number of communities where operator services are likely to be lost. For example, Minnedosa still has operator services. That could very easily be lost. There has been a great deal of concern in that community. Boissevain, I believe, is in the same situation, and there is a significant amount of concern.
But, you know, yesterday we had a meeting in Selkirk, and I talked to a lot of MTS employees there on the issue of selling off MTS. There is even concern in areas like Selkirk, because those operator services with current technology can be transferred not just to Winnipeg, by the way, but could be transferred out of the province. If you look at what happens with American telephone systems, in a lot of cases--if you phone Florida, the area code for Florida, the operator services are hailing out of South Carolina. They have been contracted out.
Under a Crown corporation, that is not going to happen. I think we have an efficiently run telephone system, and I am not arguing for maintaining jobs for the sake of maintaining jobs, but the advantage is--and decentralization is kind of living proof of this--that you are able to influence, as a government, the actions of MTS, and, obviously, what the government did in this case was state that jobs in rural and northern Manitoba are a priority. That is why you include it as part of the decentralization process.
So what I wanted to raise is that concern to the minister. I have read through the act. There is no guarantees of rural and northern employment. There is no reference to it whatsoever. I know the minister in the House has said, well, you know, it is going to be owned by Manitobans. Well, we do not know yet, by the way. We know that up to 25 percent could be foreign-owned under the structure.
The first opportunity to purchase shares will go to Manitobans, but people from other areas of Canada can buy, and if you look at what happened in Alberta, as soon as those shares were sold, they were on the Toronto Stock Exchange. A significant part of Telus, which owns AGT, which is their phone company, is now owned outside of the province. Believe you me, if you are a shareholder sitting in Toronto, I do not think it takes too much to figure out you are not going to have much of a concern for employment in that area, and I know it is a big concern in Morden. When I had the meeting in Morden, there were a lot of people in that community who were very concerned. Morden has got a very significant office, a large number of employees.
As I said, I will fight the privatization battle. I am not fighting that here. I did not come into this committee to continue that debate. I do not ask for the minister to comment on that, but I am wondering that, if there is not something that the minister can do in terms of decentralization, or the government can do, or if it is considering doing that, to give some greater security to rural Manitoba in terms of employment.
I really believe this, and I am not saying this as a scare tactic, but I would say there will only be two regional offices left within a number of years. There may be some local offices, and I see some regional offices, being downgraded to local offices. I see a lot of communities losing all their employment; I mention Minnedosa and Boissevain. Morden could be very affected. I think there could be a major downsizing in that office. Some of those jobs may be moved to Winnipeg. You know, it is a lot easier for a company--and the minister knows it; that is why we have decentralization--to run it out of the head office in some ways, even though it may not be that much better economically. It may not impact on the bottom line, but obviously if you have got the choice, and you are a private company, of having 45 offices across the province or having two or three central offices, it is easier to go with that.
* (1150)
I am wondering if the minister can give not just me any assurance, but the people of rural and northern Manitoba some sense of whether the government sees any role apart from--there will be some government reps on the board, I believe, which is about the only control we will have left, but is there anything that the government has done? Has the government even considered what the potential loss to rural and northern Manitoba might be under the new company in terms of jobs? By the way, there will be losses of jobs--I think everybody in the telephone system knows that--under privatization. The big concern is that rural and northern Manitoba will suffer the most.
Mr. Derkach: Well, as Rural Development minister, Mr. Chairman, I can tell the member that I am certainly going to do what I can to ensure that there is a presence of the new telephone system in rural Manitoba. I do not know the impact that it is going to have on the entire system in terms of jobs. Furthermore, I do not know what impact it is going to have on rural Manitoba at this point in time. The services are still going to be required in rural Manitoba, and I do not see things changing significantly in rural Manitoba because those services will still be required there. I guess we can assume a lot of things, but until we see the final plan, I do not believe that we should be out there creating fears that maybe are not warranted.
We are living in a different age today. I know that this is not the place to debate the privatization of Manitoba Telephone System, but things will continue to change. They will continue to change in the next five years. There will be other situations where jobs are going to be impacted in both the urban and the rural settings. What we as a government are trying to do is to ensure that jobs of one kind or another are brought into the rural setting. They do not have to be government jobs. They do not have to be with MTS and Manitoba Hydro and the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, better still that they be jobs that are created by the private sector because those are the sustainable jobs, those are the ones that are going to make a difference in communities.
To that extent I have to say that in rural Manitoba we have seen a tremendously positive turnaround. When you look at initiatives like the one of McCain's, the Nestle-Simplot one in Carberry, the Simplot plant in Brandon, and you can go on and on. I can cite examples of where communities have attracted significant companies to very small areas.
The other initiative, of course, is communities creating companies that are going to either add value to the products that are produced in those communities or are going to manufacture something or are going to manufacture something for export, but communities have come alive. They are a different job, of course; they are not government jobs. But I have always said, we should not rely on government to create jobs for people in rural communities or anywhere for that matter. We should be a catalyst as a department to try and attract businesses into the rural setting that will create jobs that are sustainable and will be basically created by the private sector.
So is there going to be an impact on rural communities by the change in status of the telephone system? I cannot answer that for the member, but let me assure him that we will try to do whatever it is we can to stimulate the economy of our rural communities, whether it is northern Manitoba or in the southern part of the province, it does not matter.
I was in The Pas yesterday, and to be honest with you, I was quite impressed by the direction that the community has taken in the last year or six months. There is a different attitude in The Pas. The mayor and his council, the LGD, seem to be working together much more co-operatively now than they have in the past, and that is what is going to make a difference. They are talking about new industries coming into the community, there is a new hotel being built on the reserve right now, there is a new restaurant coming up in the area. They are looking at tourism as a major kind of industry in that community.
The attitude of rural Manitobans has really changed, and that is what is making the difference and that is what is going to attract businesses and attract our young people back into these communities to earn their livings and to raise their families. That is where our emphasis is going to be, but we will at the same time continue to look for opportunities where we can to decentralize people.
In terms of the Manitoba Telephone System, I do not know what the impact is going to be, but we will certainly be watching that and monitoring that with some care.
Mr. Ashton: I realize we are running short of time, I just want to make one brief statement. I appreciate the frankness of the minister and, by the way, I think jobs in Manitoba Telephone System are just as important as the private sector jobs. I mean, they are commercially related. These are not jobs that are put there in any make-work program.
The plea I want to make to the government is to really be careful of what is happening--and we will get into the debate on the privatization later on--but I am really concerned and the communities I have been through, I have been to Portage, they are concerned there. They are very, very concerned. They have already lost their operator services. Those jobs can easily be moved elsewhere with current technology. It may not make any difference on the bottom line, but they make a big difference to that community, and they have lost quite a few in there.
I mentioned about Morden, I know the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) is aware of the concerns in that case. By the way, there is solid support in a lot of those communities from the business community. They are very concerned. They know those are people, their neighbours, their friends, they are also major consumers, and those are often some of the decent-paying jobs in the communities.
I have been in Neepawa, it is the same concern in there. I have been in Brandon, Dauphin, and the real concern is losing that control which the government does have through decentralization. It proves the point, to my mind, that you can influence things when you want it.
Like I said, I do not want to get into the debate about the privatization right now, but I would urge the minister, as being the minister responsible for Decentralization, to do whatever he can and perhaps his colleagues, as well, to try and make sure that no matter happens--win, lose or draw in terms of what happens with the issue of privatization in the fall, particularly if the government does get its way and it is sold off--that we will not lose a lot of the rural and northern employment.
By the way, we have more than 1,000 jobs with MTS alone outside of the city of Winnipeg. If you consider the impact on the local economies, I think you would find in most of those communities those are the jobs. Those are the most important sources of income, so I just make that plea to the minister.
Mr. Derkach: Just a quick comment: I ask the members of the opposition to work with us as we go through this change in the way that MTS and other things are going to happen in rural Manitoba.
I can tell you that, for example, we have been in our department working with the Manitoba Telephone System to try and access the dark fibre that is in the ground now so that rural communities can have a competitive--not advantage--but a playing field when it comes to rates for attracting such things as call centres to their communities. Right now, they cannot do that, and the CRTC will not allow us to access that dark fibre without a cost.
One of the pluses of the whole move with MTS is that we perhaps will be able to then access that fibre at an affordable cost. So, yes, we are working with our telephone systems. We are working with the people who are involved in the home initiative to try and ensure that Manitobans have at least a competitive playing field or a level playing field in terms of opportunities that might come about.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. As the House agreed to pass all remaining Supply resolutions by 12, I am interrupting proceedings to put the question on the remaining resolutions for Decentralization, Legislative Assembly and Sport.
Line 4, page 139. Decentralization $100,000--pass.
Resolution 27.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $100,000 for Other Appropriations, Decentralization, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.
* (1200)