Len Taylor

Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly
Economy Committee
April 22, 2008

Questions by Len Taylor, MLA The Battlefords
Answered by the Hon. Wayne Elhard, Minister of Highways

The Chair: — Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Taylor: — Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and Mr. Harper. I appreciate the opportunity to ask some questions. And I add my welcome to the minister and his officials. I’ve had a number of years of experience with the majority of the officials around the minister and I want to ensure that the minister knows I have full confidence in his officials. It’s a strong team. I think they have the interests of the province at heart, and I think he will get good advice for my tough questions this afternoon.
First and foremost, just has to do with the release of the priorities for the next two years. Can the minister outline the criteria that was used to develop the list of priorities for the coming year and the year following?

Hon. Mr. Elhard: — Thank you for the question. Mr. Chair, the discussion around the release of the first two years of priorities was fairly extensive in the previous session that we gathered here. I would think that I probably focused my comments first and foremost on the first year because we didn’t have a lot of time to do what we might have done in its entirety before we had to start releasing tenders for the upcoming construction season. So there was motivation to get moving fairly quickly, and as a consequence we identified projects that we knew met certain criteria in terms of economic advantage. We identified — oh, I’m guessing now and I can name them probably individually — but we identified about eight or ten projects in rural areas that we thought would meet the substantive economic argument that we had been making for the approach we were going to take as a mechanism to identify the highways and where we would spend our money. Then we also indicated about eight or so urban-related projects that we felt absolutely had to be moved on. The necessity of getting started was critical. We were able to confirm that the other parties that might be partners to the projects were anxious to see us move forward, and having accomplished that, we identified those projects. Now I can identify them again specifically for the member if he’d like, but you know we . . . Here was part of the problem. We knew what we wanted to do. We knew what we wanted to establish pretty much as criteria for focusing our attention on the most strategic investments, but given the time constraints and given the urgency in terms of nailing down contractor capacity and getting the tenders out in a timely manner and getting a response that would suit us in terms of sort of the time frame, we felt we had to deliver very quick, specific projects to the first year. In terms of the second year, we’ve been a little more deliberate about that and we can, I think we can justify pretty well on the terms of the basis on which we are establishing criteria, the projects that we have identified for year 2. In some instances I’d like to assure the member that year 2 will see sort of the ongoing development of projects that we start. Not all projects will be started and ended in this year. Some are going to have a lifespan of two and three years, so the year 2 projects, in many instances, were a continuation of what we are beginning in year 1.
And I think of the Lewvan interchange project as one of the most specific examples I can identify. This year we knew that we wanted to get the engineering work done, the pre-design, the design, and then all the work associated with putting the tender together. That was pretty much what we would do this year. Then we would move into construction tenders for year 2 and completion of work would probably be accomplished in year 3. So the year 2 outline was in many ways a continuation of projects we identified in year 1.

Mr. Taylor: — I thank the minister for his answers. I wanted to get a bit of a background before I asked my second, third question. The minister will obviously be aware of using that criteria or virtually any other with the dollars that are available. There are as many communities who are not on the list for year 1 and year 2 as there are on the list for year 1 and year 2. In other words, there are a number of communities that have projects, have been in consultation with the ministry and the officials, and they have not been given the opportunity to know where they stand, other than that there will be work in year 3 and in year 4 and in the future.
One of those communities, of course, is in my constituency, The Battlefords, and in particular a project in the town of Battleford, work around Highway 4 through the town of Battleford and connections to Highway 16, the Yellowhead Highway. With the announcement of priorities for year 1 and year 2, the mayor has expressed significant disappointment that this strategic initiative requiring strategic investment is most important to the town of Battleford. Can the minister outline the status of that project in terms of what he and the officials know about that project, and give us some idea as to what perhaps it did not meet in the criteria for year 1 and year 2? So my question is, the project through the town of Battleford: what is the status of that project?

Hon. Mr. Elhard: — Well I’d like to thank the member for his question. And I want to assure him and his mayor and his council that our meeting, when we were able to get it together — I think it was during the SUMA [Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association] convention — I found the project and the arguments pretty compelling and the presentation was really quite persuasive.
And I know that the community is very anxious to see some work done on the twinning of the highway through the North Battleford and Battleford — I guess it’s the actual Battleford part of the highway there. And the argument was made that they had some development potential that was very interested in locating there, but there was seemingly a concern that if the road wasn’t twinned, that that development might not happen.
Now I wouldn’t say that I didn’t discount that argument at all because, you know, I know that there are circumstances and situations around the province where development seems to be completely dovetailed into, or is desired, based on certain infrastructure being put in place.
But I was faced with a situation where we really had to carefully compare that particular project with some of other ones that were really pressing right now. And I would say that we had a situation in Yorkton where there are two canola crushing plants in the process of being constructed that demanded our immediate attention, and that there were some other projects that really required immediate attention because of increased traffic volumes or they were the final step in completing a total corridor.
But I would suggest to the member that there is always going to be competing interests for the money that we have available to us. And even though this year’s budget was the largest ever in the history of the province, I found that it’s nowhere near adequate to meet all the demands.
So we had to come up with a system by which we could effectively prioritize our expenditures. And I wanted to take the small “p” politics out of a lot of this. I wanted to come up with a fairly clear set of criteria on which we evaluated each and every project, so that the projects would be driven by economics first off, and then secondly safety, and thirdly socio-economic criteria.
And we have not got far enough into that process to identify each and every one of those projects. And that’s why you haven’t heard from us what our year 3, 4, and 5 projects will be because there is that ongoing need to use our criteria to make that evaluation. And as the member can appreciate, it’s a huge task that we’re undertaking here when we talk about evaluating every highway in the province and every special project on the basis of these criteria.
So the rollout for years 3, 4, and 5 has been put back a little ways because of the size of the task and the immensity of the expenditures that are awaiting our attention. The situation, I guess, is maybe something in more detail should be better described by Mr. Stamatinos because he’s been working very carefully on this undertaking. And it might be best if I had him kind of elaborate the process under which we’re taking these decisions and where we’re at in the structure of year 3, 4, and 5 projects.
But I want to assure the member that just because he hasn’t seen it on year 1 or 2 doesn’t mean we aren’t considering it. And whether the prospect is for year 3 or year 4, whether there are important economic arguments that might be made that would move that project ahead a bit or not remains to be seen as a result of the analysis that the ministry’s undertaking.
Mr. Stamatinos, maybe you could discuss in more detail your approach.

Mr. Stamatinos: — Thank you, Minister, and Mr. Chair. The analysis we’ve been undertaking will consider the criteria that the minister had just a moment ago presented to you. It will look at five specific pieces of information in helping us to determine first of all the plan, the five-year plan, as well as how they may be ranked.
The criteria are first really the contribution to the economy, which is probably the most heavily weighted piece of the frame. The second piece is determination of the function of the road: how it serves the health care needs of the region, the communities that are in that region, education, how it connects some significant industries, things of that nature.
The third piece looks more specifically at safety. The quality of the surface is important as well as how it fares in terms of the access we would expect of a road of that nature. The fourth looks at what we call socio-political, for a lack of a better term, and what that means.
As many of you would know, we have air transportation planning committees in our province, and they have been doing some very good work for us in terms of defining their regional transportation needs. And the way the framework is structured, it will give certainly some significant consideration. But there’s an alignment of the priorities identified by our ATPCs [air transportation planning committees] with our plan.
The other piece is we’ve been working with Tourism Saskatchewan, and we want to include the work that they’ve done and their priorities that they’ve established from their, I suspect, marketing efforts. We want to include that as well inside the framework.
And the last piece is we’re looking at partnerships. As a ministry of the government, we value willing partners and contributions they might make, whether it be in terms of some financial contribution to the project or it could mean really working and creating a positive environment in which we can deal with our local stakeholders in the delivery of the project.
Now this particular project in The Battlefords, there’s another piece to it actually. There’s another level. Because it is within the municipality of The Battlefords, we’ve invited the community to participate in what we call an urban highway connector program. And we’re still waiting from response from them. I know we are in discussions with them. And once we receive that positive interest, we will ask them to prepare with us a 5-year plan, a 10-year plan, 10, 15-year plan, etc. And our assumption would be that that particular project would appear in that plan. And what we would do is we would work with our other community partners that have indicated a willingness to sign up on the program. We would coordinate the delivery of that project in the context of the policy parameters we put together for the program.

Mr. Taylor: — Thank you very much for that answer. I like clarity. I always seek clarity, and when I see some potential for confusion . . . So I just want some clarity on the answer that you just gave. I hope the town of Battleford isn’t looking at a 10-year window for the completion of this project. You talked about a 5-year plan, a 10-year plan. Just for clarity, we aren’t looking at 10 years to complete this project.

Mr. Stamatinos: — What the process that will be, is first of all we have to have them indicate certainly an interest in joining the program. And we haven’t had that confirmation yet. We certainly have a positive feeling that they will. Once that’s done, and you prepare a 5-year, 10-year plan, it’s really up to them. I assume they’re going to show it in first five years. What we would do, we will apply the ranking that we discussed earlier, those five criteria to it, as we will with all the other projects we receive from our other partner communities, and see how it fares. And that’s the way we will program it.

Mr. Taylor: — Thank you very much. On the same project, the minister in his part of the answer indicated that he was aware that there is industrial and commercial development that is indicated, that for them to make their investment, they need to have assurances from the province that indeed the work is going to be done there. The commercial development that’s to take place adjacent to that roadway is dependent upon the changes that are being discussed by the department and the town.
And Mr. Stamatinos is absolutely right. The road goes through the town of Battleford. The only thing is, the town of Battleford is on the east side of the road, and it’s a field on the left side of the road. And it’s the field that’s being developed for the growth, the incredible growth that’s taking place in the town of Battleford. So it’s the development of that road, that highway, provincial highway which was adjacent to the community — in reality it goes through it, but it is adjacent to the existing community — that will ensure that the town of Battleford is ready for growth.
The theme of the budget, ironically, is Ready for Growth. The town of Battleford is well positioned to be ready for growth. So I simply ask . . . the town of Battleford is obviously in the queue. I’m assuming that from the answers that you’ve given us. What does it take for the mayor, the councillors in the town, and the staff in the town to ensure that while they’re in the queue, they become a priority for funding in year 3 or year 4?

Hon. Mr. Elhard: — If I might, I’ll just, I’ll start the answer, and if you need more clarification I’m sure Mr. Stamatinos can provide it.
I guess I wasn’t clear as a result of our meeting with the mayor and some of his councillors whether or not the development start was contingent on us doing the twinning project. Like there was talk of a project or some development happening there, and that they felt it was necessary at some point to have the road twinned, but I was never certain whether the request was for us to build a road before they came, or if they just needed some assurance that the project was . . . you know, we were willing to consider it as part of our ongoing development scheduling.
So I guess if the project hasn’t shown up on our list, it doesn’t indicate, it doesn’t indicate a failure of the project. What it indicates is that we had more certainty of need in terms of immediacy with some of these other projects than we knew for certain with the Battleford situation.
Having said that though, the outline that Mr. Stamatinos gave you . . . Maybe we should clarify with you a little about the urban connectors portion of the provincial ministry.
This is a program that is being made available to 59 communities in the province of Saskatchewan with a population of 1,000 people or more. And it was precipitated by the fact that there were all sorts of different levels of service and agreement between the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure and those individual communities. It was a hodgepodge or a very eclectic group of circumstances that each community held and undertook, in terms of maintenance, in terms of service, in terms of winter snow removal. All of those types of factors that were coming into play.
In some instances, the Ministry of Highways took responsibility for roads deep inside the urban area of any given community without legal authorization to do so. In other instances, we had highways that joined in a junction at maybe the outskirts of a city but did actually serve a good part of the city, and the road maintenance, the highways maintenance crews, would stop outside the boundaries of the city even though the highway continued through the city.
So this urban connectors policy was an attempt by the ministry to rationalize how we, as a provincial entity, deal with infrastructure that serves both the community and a compelling provincial interest in each of these 59 communities. We’ve asked them to consider our invitation to join the urban connectors program. We are negotiating with a number of communities right now. I think we’ve had 15 or so. Twenty-five now have signed on, but we are waiting for some response from the additional communities that have yet to give us an indication of their intentions.
But maybe Mr. Stamatinos could provide you a little more clarity on that, and as part of his answer, might be able to identify how we see the city of Battleford and the municipality playing a role in helping us achieve what would be an appropriate level of service in that community before we actually get into the decision as to whether we’re going to twin that section of road. Would that be all right?

Mr. Taylor: — I’m prepared to hear more from Mr. Stamatinos, yes.

Mr. Stamatinos: — If I might just pick up where the minister left off. Just in terms of accuracy, and I know the member has an interest in clarity. What we have is 25 . . . We’ve had positive responses with 25 communities that are eligible for the program. We’re just in the process of reminding them again of that interest, and we’re in the process of developing agreements with them. So just that little piece of clarity.
The way the program is structured is as the minister indicated. Again we look at a number of criteria that is of interest provincially and municipally to determine how we can calculate, in a consistent manner, the provincial and municipal interest on any particular highway connector. And we spent a good deal of time doing this. A lot of effort went, analysis went into it.
And we were able to, for each highway connector, a route within an eligible community — an eligible community of being a community of over 1,000 people — we’ve assigned to that route an interest level, whether it’d be 25, 50, 75, 100 per cent which represents the contribution the province would make to any manner of work that might be appropriate for that route. And the type of work that is consistent — I think the minister did mention — is a highway upgrading for example, a restoration project, or a just a normal operations and maintenance. And we’ve done that for every one of . . . well those 59 communities.
What is I guess a unique feature of the program is that it is voluntary. The ministry will respect any previous arrangements that are in place for the maintenance of their roads and the restoration and that responsibility. It’s a piece that we felt was important because some of those communities, because of the consistent nature of how we’re applying the policy, we felt some communities would not be interested, and for that reason we’ve made it voluntary. And for those who choose not to be part of that process, we will continue to provide the services that we had in the past. So in the context of the Highway 4 project in The Battlefords, we are applying that very same thinking to that project.
So I believe the first piece of the transaction has to be of course to secure an interest by the community to be part of the policy. And there’s a determination already made about what the interest level would be on that particular route. I apologize to the member; I don’t have that information with me, but it would certainly something in 50 or 75 per cent.
When we deal with our community partners under the policy, we make a point of encouraging them to look at opportunities for federal cost-sharing, if they’re available to them, because of course that defrays their costs as well as ours, and allows that project to proceed more expediently. Now once we receive notice from the community that they are interested, one of the things, first of all we’d need to have that plan from them. And the second piece is we would talk to them, as we will with all of our other member communities. Another 25 anticipate will be signing on to the policy. We will gather their five-year plans. We will apply a set of priority rankings to them, and we want to inform everybody on a consistent, transparent manner, where each of those projects sits in the plan.

Mr. Taylor: — Thank you very much for that information. The town of Battleford, the council, and the officials have actually been quite clear with me as to what they desire. It appears — from the answers that I’m getting from both the minister, and from George — that they haven’t been as clear with the department or the ministry. I would welcome the opportunity to have discussions with the minister, but I think it’s more important that the town have an opportunity to meet with and discuss this issue in greater detail. They do have some strong and fairly firm opinions on the urban connector program. I don’t know that they are seeing a direct tie between an agreement on urban connectors and a commitment by the province to twin the piece of road that needs doing.
Is there a direct tie between these two pieces of policy within the department and the effect that it might have on queuing them further for additional investment by the problem in the town’s ready-for-growth initiative?

Mr. Stamatinos: — Well I can tell the member is . . . I think what you’re referring to, Mr. Taylor, is the . . . whether if they do not join the urban highway connector program, what is the process they would follow in terms of having some work done on having them before. Is that what you’re asking me? Just so I understand.

Mr. Taylor: — That’s part of my question. I can’t say for sure it’s a direct question that the town would ask, but I think it needs to be clarified before the town and the department continue their discussions.

Mr. Stamatinos: — I think it would be fair to say with participation in the urban highway connector program . . . provides a consistent framework, that we could assess all the investments that are required across all of our eligible communities. It’s a reasonable, transparent, fair process. If a community chooses not to join the policy or the program, we would go in there with our normal partnering process that we’ve exercised in the past. And often that would involve some negotiation on how that transaction would occur. That’s why we moved to the policy framework because it does provide a consistent framework on how we deal with folks on these types of matters.

Mr. Taylor: — On behalf of the town — and obviously, you know, I don’t represent the council, town council, but based on my meetings with them — I simply make representation that I do believe another meeting should take place between officials from the province and the town to further clarify where things are at.
One other piece . . . I only had a couple of questions, and we’re eating up a lot of time in the committee here, but I appreciate this. One other question on the town of Battleford project, just thinking about the growth in the economy, and in the past several years at third quarter and year-end there have been additional dollars available to various departments. I’m assuming that — if on third quarter or year-end there are additional dollars available, particularly for infrastructure and the ready-for-growth initiative of the province — department or Ministry of Highways would be eligible for some additional dollars.
Would a project like the town of Battleford have any chance of being queued up for additional funding in this fiscal year should additional dollars be made available — the town of Battleford of course being on the west side of the province where a lot of the growth is taking place, right up the whole west side of the province? I simply throw that in as a piece of new criteria.

Hon. Mr. Elhard: — Being a former cabinet member, the member would know how dangerous it is to speculate on where monies might come from and how they might be spent in the future. And I wouldn’t want to speculate at all in that regard. I have no assurance from the Finance minister or the Premier that we’re going to deviate too far from our budget as it stands right now.
But the pressure for infrastructure development in the province, as the member is aware I’m sure, is immense. It’s far greater than we could cope with even if our budget was doubled. I mean, I don’t think there’s any exaggeration in making that statement here today. Not only do we have, you know, a significant infrastructure deficit coming forward; the demands from here forward are going to be almost exponentially greater than they have been. So I don’t know how much money it would take to satisfy the infrastructure needs across the province. And that’s why it was so critical for us to come up with a mechanism, a formula by which we could make whatever investments possible as strategically and effectively as possible.
The argument is if we invest our money in the most strategic manner possible, it will produce better and bigger results quicker, which in turn will give us more opportunity to address a greater number of infrastructure needs, and it’ll have the ripple effect that the pebble in the water creates.
And you know, that concept might be challenged, but I think that we had to have some mechanism on which we could make these decisions so that they paid the biggest dividends with the sort of the least amount of politics around them. That’s what I’m trying to achieve here. I’m trying to do the best for the people of the province, for the future of the province with the monies we’ve got.
And I don’t want to dismiss $513 million. That’s a significant amount of money, but given the demands and given the challenges for infrastructure, we had to have a very clear set of criteria to make the proper investments. And that is what I’ve charged the ministry with undertaking, and that’s what their accomplishing now. And I’m amazed at how far they’ve come in the short time that they’ve had this challenge placed in front of them.
In fact as I alluded in my opening comments, the ministry was somewhat down that path already, and that is why we were able to come up with as specific and as practical suggestions for investment as we did for year one of our plan. They had looked at our needs and had a very inside and clear understanding of where the pressure points were and that’s why we were able to identify those projects quickly for year one issue. And that’s why we were able to tender them as appropriately and in as timely a manner as was undertaken.
But going forward, you know, the need is going to continue to grow at a faster rate than I think we’ve seen it grow in many, many years. And, you know, that might beg the question given the escalating costs of construction whether we’re actually going to meet our bare minimum requirements with $500 million budgets. You know, when $500 million this year only buys what $300 million bought a couple of years ago, it’s hard to keep ahead of the curve, and we don’t want to be falling behind the curve either. So if we’re going to keep our eye on the curve we need to be making these investments in the most strategic manner possible.
Now I want to . . . I’m not going to second guess what Mr. Stamatinos said but I’ll be a little more direct. Being a party to the urban connector’s program won’t make the project in North Battleford any less needy or any less appropriate, but we have basically looked at partnership as being one of the many criteria we’re using to assess the efficacy or the appropriateness of any project. And if I had two projects around the province that were identical in terms of cost and need and benefit but one project had the benefit of partnership and the other one didn’t, we’re going to opt for the one that has partnership.

Mr. Taylor: — Thank you very much, Minister. I will take that information back to the town, and I’m sure that they will want to contact you at some time in the near future.
On another project in The Battlefords, I’ve talked about the mayor of the town of Battleford and the work that they want to see done on Highway 4 and the connector to Highway 16. But north of The Battlefords, Highway 4 North between North Battleford and Cochin, the resort village of Cochin, is another piece of highway that the mayor of the city of North Battleford has spent a considerable amount of time, and the mayor of the resort village of Cochin has spent a fair bit of time talking about.
And I commend your officials over the last three years, the work that they have done with those communities and others, to address some safety needs on that piece of highway. The officials certainly know — I don’t know if the minister knows — but in two of the last three years, we’ve had some significant tragedy on that piece of highway, a significant number of deaths, loss of life. I’m wondering if the ministry is contemplating any further work on Highway 4 North of North Battleford to the resort village of Cochin to address some of the needs expressed by the mayors of the resort village and the city of North Battleford.

Hon. Mr. Elhard: — To the member, Mr. Chair, the assertion he made about the willingness of the ministry to talk with communities and to deal with them candidly on issues of concern to them is something that I have found very refreshing, frankly. I have been a Highways critic for a lot of my political career, and I never had any reason to doubt their willingness to talk to the communities. But I’ve been greatly impressed, even more so since I became minister here, to find out how available our ministry people make themselves to communities and organizations when they express concerns around any particular highway in the province under our jurisdiction, I guess is what I want to say there.
The demand for the time of people in our ministry is incredible. If I just look at the number of letters that come to my office asking for my attendance at meetings, I can only imagine that Mr. Law here or any of our other assistant deputy ministers have as many or more invitations to attend. And I think we have area engineers and so forth that are constantly visiting communities and participating in area transportation planning committee meetings. And I think the list would be endless.
So I thank you for noting that on behalf of our ministry because I think we need to make sure that the good work of the ministry in those endeavours is identified and recognized publicly. In terms of work on Highway No. 4 North of North Battleford, I’m familiar with that stretch of road to some extent. I’ve driven it two or three times. It takes you into a lovely part of the province and an area to which I’d like to return at some time. But I did notice that the highway is impacted by the proximity of communities right to the road and the resort villages and all the holiday activity that occurs in that region, making it subject to some safety issues. And I really should let Terry Schmidt, I think, or Deputy Minister Law here address those concerns because I don’t think we have them in our sights for year one or two, frankly.

Mr. Law: — Thank you, Minister. And to the member, as Mr. Taylor may recall, we commissioned a review by a consultant who identified a number of safety improvements under our safety improvement program as a result of the circumstances the member alluded to. And my understanding is that there were a variety of initiatives that the member will know were undertaken with respect to turning lanes and some signalling and signs and so on that were included as part of those recommendations. My understanding is that I think we have responded to all of the specific recommendations that were provided in that report that was developed in conjunction with the community.
That’s not to say that there may not be other things that we can consider. The minister notes correctly that we didn’t have any further work identified in our safety improvement program in the current year for that location, but it is a customary part of our process to monitor the effect and the efficacy of the improvements that are made as a result of these kinds of things, and that will be a part of the exercise over the course of this year as well.
So it’s not to say there may not be other things that we can look at, but in terms of the initial set of recommendations that resulted from the study, my understanding is that the ministry has completed and delivered those projects.

Mr. Taylor: — Thank you. I’m watching the clock here, so I don’t take too much time away from my colleagues. I have one last question. It could be more than one question depending on the answer but a bit of a comment first of all.
I did notice that back in 1982 one of the first things that we noticed after a change in government was a change in colours on highway signs. I’ve noticed that the new government seems to be bringing more green and yellow into government advertising and documents and that sort of thing. I’m wondering if there’s any work being done, undertaken, discussed, or reviewed within the Ministry of Highways, with regards to changing colours for highway signs throughout the province over the course of the next year or two years or three years.

Hon. Mr. Elhard: — May I just respond by saying that if it’s happening, it’s happening outside of my knowledge. And if there are changes coming, it’ll have to do with a full sign review. We’ve had lots of requests to the ministry, both prior to our arrival here and since, to review the sign policy in the province. The tourism community is not happy with our signage policy. There are a number of other agencies and organizations that aren’t happy. I know I’ve been approached about 911 signs that we don’t have in the province. And so those kinds of questions have come to us.
And I’m going to let Mr. Law speak to the review of the signage policy in more detail, but that has nothing to do with colours of signs that I know of.

Mr. Law: — Just to briefly add to the minister’s comment, we are in the process having just completed a review of our signing policies to look at some options that may in fact have a bearing on the regulations, both within the rights of way and outside of the rights of way, on our provincial highway system. But there is nothing at this juncture that has been advanced with regard to changing the colours that I’m aware of. There may be something in terms of the ability to see signs that may affect, you know, some of the things that goes into the painting, but that would be of a technical nature. And at this juncture, that’s the only thing that I’m aware of in that particular category.

Mr. Taylor: — All right, thank you very much. That would be the end of my line of questioning. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me the opportunity to ask the questions and thank you to the minister and his officials for being so gracious in their responses.

The Chair: — Mr. Harper.

Hansard Committee Minutes – Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly – Human Services Committee, Monday, April 21, 2008

Questions asked by Len Taylor, MLA The Battlefords

Answered by the Hon. Don McMorris, Minister of Health

Mr. Taylor: — Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few questions. And welcome to the minister. I appreciate your availability. And also welcome to all of the staff from the ministry. My compliments to the minister, I think he has the best officials in the entire civil service here in Regina, and I continue to have a considerable amount of confidence in the staff of the ministry.

I want to go specifically back to capital for a minute, and the Saskatchewan Hospital in North Battleford, a number of questions there.

And my first question is basically very simple. In preamble to the very simple question, for the last two years there’s been money in the budget allocated to the planning process at Sask Hospital in North Battleford. In this particular budget, there’s no funding specifically allocated. And I’d just like to establish for the record, is the commitment of the minister towards the completion of the project in North Battleford still there?

Hon. Mr. McMorris: — There is still planning dollars and more planning that needs to be underway, taken before, you know, there’s a shovel in the ground or any further work will be done. So there’s at least another year of planning at least, I guess, from what I understand. There’s also some issues around cost I believe when that project was first announced. I forget what the dollar figure was and what it was just . . . and recently it’s up 200 plus. So there are some challenges that way as well. So, you know, the planning money is going to continue and we’ll see where that takes us.

Mr. Taylor: — Okay. Can you give us an idea of what the status of that planning currently is? As I understand it the project planning is in preparation of going to detailed plans and I’d just like confirmation of that and what’s involved in going to the detailed plans that yet has to be done.

Hon. Mr. McMorris: — As you know especially is that there’s quite a long process, the different steps that the facilities have to go through. I believe that they’re to about step 12, finish step 8 and 9 and moving on up to step 12 where it gets into the design. And so that is the next process that will be taking place.

Mr. Taylor: — The reason I ask that question is because a few weeks ago the Minister of Finance was in North Battleford. He was doing a presentation on the budget. Naturally because of the interest in the community, he was asked the question that I asked earlier: is the commitment to Sask hospitals still there? And the Minister of Finance said yes, and then a subsequent question was similar to the one I just asked. The Minister of Finance could not answer that question, but he deferred to the CEO [chief executive officer] of the Prairie North Regional Health Authority who amongst the number of things that he said was he was waiting on the authority of the ministry to allow the project to proceed to detailed planning.

And so my question is, are we at that stage and is authority to go detailed planning under consideration now?

Hon. Mr. McMorris: — I guess it would be safe to say that, you know, the planning, the process is still moving at the normal rate, normal process that detail planning will be moving ahead.

Mr. Taylor: — Okay thank you. I want to ask about funding. I am trying to determine the actual status of the funding currently. You just mentioned the cost could be approaching the $200 million mark. That’s the first time I’ve heard that number. We of course are all aware that construction, infrastructure projects of all kind, have escalated in cost over the last couple of years, and in some cases substantially. Has the design changed in some way that have increased the costs so dramatically, or is it simply a better understanding of the components of the project that have — with inflation, construction inflation — factored in there? Has anything changed in the actual plan itself that has escalated these dollars from 60 to 200 million?

Hon. Mr. McMorris: — So yes, there has been a bit of a change in the one number that I used. The 200 was just one that I pulled out of the air. It was at 150. I said about, but it was at 150 last — was it? — in October. So you know, we can put inflation on top of that. But the last estimate was about 150. So there is some change in the plan of the facility which you’d probably be aware of. I mean it started at roughly 60 to 70 million, and it’s up to 150. Not all of that is attributable to inflation, although a large portion of it is. And depending on how far out this is, it’s at 150 now.

Mr. Taylor: — Okay thank you. Also in terms of that funding, two years ago with oil and gas dollars, third quarter allocation of funds, the previous government set aside $39 million to be applied against the total costs of this project. There’s no evidence in this budget that that $39 million continues to sit in a fund somewhere. Is it the minister’s sense that the 39 million that was committed towards this project is still available to Saskatchewan Health for this capital or any other capital project?

Hon. Mr. McMorris: — The Fiscal Stabilization Fund had money in it. That was moved over to the growth and investment fund, so that money has all moved across. So as you know that there is a large sum of money in that. I believe that under the Fiscal Stabilization Fund there were some intentions or statements more or less made where some of that money was going to go. And that’s what it was, was I guess maybe a footnote as to where some of that money was allotted. It’s been moved across. I’m not familiar with . . . Well I don’t believe that there is any footnotes made with the fund that we have set up. I could check into that, but I don’t believe that there are footnotes as was in the Fiscal Stabilization Fund.

Mr. Taylor: — I have two follow-up questions for that. The first one is just a confirmation. As I read the budget, the fiscal growth and stabilization fund has X number of dollars in it. The four year projection shows the fiscal growth and stabilization fund being used to balance the budget down to zero in the fourth year. It would appear to me that there is no — from the Department of Finance perspective — no contemplation of use of any dollars that are currently in it for purposes other than balancing the budget over the course of the next four years. Does the minister agree with that?

Hon. Mr. McMorris: — Okay well there’s, as you know, that there is money put in for the planning, and there still is. You know there’s commitment to follow through with that, with the Saskatchewan Hospital There’s money in the growth and investment fund that will be moving forward. That money is projected in a four years to be used. There’s a lot of variables that will happen between now and next year, let alone in the four years.

The nice part is that it is a four-year projection which isn’t what we saw just previous. That will be determined by, by the Minster of Finance, Treasury Board, and cabinet as we move forward how that money will be utilized. We have committed to the hospital through planning money, through more planning money, and as we move forward.

Mr. Taylor: — Just for clarification and the second part of my question, with that commitment and an understanding of that there was an earmarking in the past and understanding the process that needs to go forward, do you as Minister of Health today give the people of The Battlefords your commitment that you will continue to argue for the types of dollars that are necessary to complete this project?

Hon. Mr. McMorris: — Yes, that’s absolutely no question. I haven’t had the opportunity to tour the Saskatchewan Hospital as it stands today, and I certainly have heard lots about it and heard some major, major concerns.

As you know, you will know, there are concerns with a number of facilities. There are some long-term facilities, long-term care facilities that we need to do some work on. But certainly the hospital in North Battleford too, the Saskatchewan Hospital, I mean it’s served its time, it’s served its purpose, and it’s really — it needs to be moved on. And so I guess that’s all I can say for now.

Mr. Taylor: — Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate the minister’s comments about never having toured the facility. I know that he is aware he’s welcome in The Battlefords. Prairie North would have him any time, and should I be available, and the minister having any interest whatsoever, I would be happy to join him on a tour of the facility and comment upon the various reasons why this project has become of such importance, not only to The Battlefords but to the province as a whole — the only long-term institution for people of psychiatric need in the province.

At the same time, and while we’re on the subject of Saskatchewan Hospital North Battleford, I was pleased to hear the minister’s comments earlier about the psychiatric nursing program. The Saskatchewan psychiatric nurses association was very pleased at the institution, the reinstitution of the program, and delivering of psychiatric nursing education in this province. Those 30 seats, starting intake this fall at SIAST, is welcomed by everybody that I’ve talked to.

That having been said, the Registered Psychiatric Nurses Association has also been interested in ultimately, once Saskatchewan Hospital is built, opened, and operating, would like to see those seats, that program, delivered at Sask Hospital in North Battleford. There have been discussions in the planning of the design of the hospital, the new hospital, to take into account the delivery of the education program there I’m wondering if it’s the minister’s commitment to continue the work that has begun to lobby the Department of Advanced Education and Learning, and the two nursing programs at the University of Saskatchewan and SIAST to ultimately be able to deliver that program in The Battlefords, where most of the clinical placements will take place and a lot of employment will take place for graduates of that program.

Hon. Mr. McMorris: — That’s an interesting question, and you know, the nursing council and the review of the NEPS program is all kind of underway. There are certainly more seats that we’re going to be adding, as I said, 150 more seats from where we’re at to get up the 300 that we said we’d increase by. And the breakdown . . . I had the opportunity of meeting with the Psychiatric Nurses Association. I believe it was last week. And one of their concerns was, is 30 enough? We maybe need to increase that. I said that after 11 years, I think, of no program, we’re learning to walk and hopefully can increase.

Now the exact location of where that program will be delivered, you know, you make a very good point, a very valid point, and that does, you know, at first blush, makes sense that it may be centred out of that facility. It’s pretty tough for me to say that that’s where it will be. I can’t commit. But it has, you know, some real merit that that would fit together quite well. I do know that, you know, a number of years ago when the program was offered, a lot of the, some of the training was done at Weyburn at Souris Valley. And I mean there’s a bit of a precedent for that already, but I can’t sit here today, not knowing when that facility is going to be complete even, to say that’s where those seats will be. But it does have merit for sure.

Mr. Taylor: — Well thank you, I appreciate that as well. And certainly the psychiatric nursing program was indeed delivered in North Battleford as well in the past, so again the precedent same as Weyburn.

But the other piece of course is that the planning does call for a new hospital to be built. Having clinical space available there to take into account some new students is an important . . . of the, ultimately, the planning process, but more importantly we are leaving behind a building that the community is very anxious to find other uses for. Were we to deliver a nursing education program, there is the opportunity to do some substantial remodelling of the old building for training and, well, educational and training space, not to mention residential capacity for students who would have to move to The Battlefords for their training, etc. So there are other parts of this bigger picture that perhaps increase the merit of the proposal overall, and so I appreciate the minister’s commitment and just throw those two pieces forward.

On the same subject though of Prairie North and The Battlefords and what’s going on with some of the delivery of programs, I know that when our roles were reversed the minister had some questions regarding the delivery of hemodialysis services throughout Saskatchewan. Prairie North Regional Health Authority and Battlefords Union Hospital has a satellite unit for the delivery of hemodialysis. There has been talk for a while about the expansion of that satellite service in The Battlefords, and I’m wondering if the minister can give us an update on the expansion of hemodialysis services at Battlefords Union Hospital.

Hon. Mr. McMorris: — Well the funding is still there. I think as with all of the satellite locations, staffing and making sure you have the personnel is the biggest challenge. It’s not the matter of whether it’s needed. It’s whether we can staff the unit to increase the capacity. So the money is there. I think it’s more contingent on being able to attract proper staffing levels.

Mr. Taylor: — That was a key part of my next question was, is the funding still there? And I hear that loud and clear and I appreciate that. In the broader picture of course there were questions where dollars weren’t quite there yet. The question of delivery of services for the Broadview area and also in a relationship in a sense, the All Nations’ Healing Hospital at Fort Qu’Appelle. I’m just wondering if the minister can give us some idea of what the year ahead might hold for those two locations.

Hon. Mr. McMorris: — Well it’s an issue that we talked about, as you said, when our roles were reversed and there’s certainly a need and a demand out there. The SIRP [Saskatchewan integrated renal program] committee is still functioning and it’ll be making its recommendations, moving forward for the ’08-09 year.

There are huge pressures. There are huge pressures around the province. You’re certainly aware, I’m very aware of the Broadview group committee that has lobbied very hard. But I’m also, you know, being made aware of and learning all the time about the pressures around the province, especially central and north, in the northern part of the province. There are some huge demands there.

So I think it’s, you know, right now until I’m proven wrong — and I’d, you know, be interested in your thoughts — but I think there’s a, you know . . . The SIRP committee serves well and looks at it from a provincial perspective that I think has served well in the past and we have no plans on changing it. And we’re looking forward to their recommendations as they do their work and move forward from a provincial perspective.

Mr. Taylor: — Thank you very much for that commitment and those comments. For what it’s worth, I had confidence in that SIRP committee; I still do.

In regards to that, a representative of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations had been added to the SIRP committee recently. Is that seat still available? Is the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations utilizing that seat on the committee?

Hon. Mr. McMorris: — Just further to that question is that there is one seat . . . There are two seats. One right now is being occupied by Dr. Roland Dyck, who is representative of FSIN [Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations], and another seat has been added for a representative from FSIN to be on that committee but hasn’t been filled yet.

Mr. Taylor: — Okay, thank you very much. The Chair is indicating that I have one more question and I want to take advantage of the fact that you have officials close to you who can answer this question as opposed to others that may involve some more seat changes. There has been talk about ambulance rates, particularly in the northwest part of the province, applying paramedic rates to areas like Prairie North Regional Health Authority. Can the minister give me some idea as to what the status of paramedic rates for ambulance providers is?

Hon. Mr. McMorris: — Well as long, you know, as far as paramedic services and as long as there is a current contract in place and the paramedic services are needed or fulfilled there, you know, it would move forward. So I think it’s an issue around contract and making sure that it’s a current contract.

Mr. Taylor: — Okay. The Chair has signalled that I actually can have one more short question, so the short question is: therefore are there dollars available to Prairie North Regional Health Authority should they be able to meet a contract need?

Hon. Mr. McMorris: — So you know, I guess the additional revenues are through the rate once the current contract is . . . It’s not necessarily funding through the, through the ministry. It’s, you know, the current rate or the rate would be approved for a paramedic service once a current contract is in place.

Mr. Taylor: — Thank you very much. Go back to Judy.

The Chair: — I recognize Ms. Junor.

The Speaker - I recognize the member from The Battlefords. TheatreFest 2008 Mr. Taylor

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Community theatre is alive and well in the province of Saskatchewan. From March 23 to March 29, The Battlefords played host to re-enacting TheatreFest 2008. Seven nights, seven plays from seven community theatre groups proved to be enlightening, entertaining, and exciting. Groups from The Battlefords, Prince Albert, Milestone, Kerrobert, Swift Current, and Yorkton produced dramas and comedies in competition. And everyone who attended were treated to the very best community theatre that this province has to offer.

Congratulations to the major winners, Mr. Speaker: winning entry, The Battlefords Community Players; best director, Donna Challis, Battlefords Community Players; best actress, Sarah Dymund, Battlefords Community Players; best actor, Jim Walls, Battlefords Community Players. Mr. Speaker, also runner-up winning entry, runner-up director, best visual presentation, best characterization, and best supporting actor all went to Swift Current Little Theatre.

For 74 years, community theatre groups in Saskatchewan have come together in competition, making TheatreFest the longest-running event of its kind in Canada.

I urge all members to express their appreciation to Theatre Saskatchewan, its president, Lynn Wagner; the co-hosts of the event, Donna Challis and Barb O’Neal; the volunteers, the sponsors, and the participants who made this week-long event rewarding for all.

Some Hon. Members — Hear, hear!