VOL. XLVI No. 38B - 9 a.m., THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1996

Thursday, May 23, 1996

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, May 23, 1996

The House met at 9 a.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

(Continued)

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Good morning. The Committee of Supply will please come to order. The committee will be resuming consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Highways and Transportation. When the committee recessed yesterday afternoon it had been considering item 1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $438,900 on page 80.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): In keeping with what we said yesterday, I am still hopeful that we can pass this Estimates by noon. However, I have no control over some people around eleven or eleven-thirty who may wish to ask more questions. I hope to wrap it up by that time.

The question I have now on northern road issues, mainly northern road issues, a couple of minor things have cropped up in the last few days I would like to ask about but, mainly, northern road issues and then the fifth is future trends, and that of course could even be put on hold or I could ask the minister to give us written responses. We will see how far we get with it.

Anyway, on the northern road issues, the first question I have is a basic information question relating to what happened last year near Wabowden with the paving project that went wrong. What was the final price tag including the money that must have been paid out by Autopac plus the resurfacing job? Is there a price tag on that? I have heard $300,000, but I just wanted to check that.

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Chairman, the member is reasonably accurate in terms of Autopac claims. It is just a little over $300,000. Our costs were $73,000 for the job and then to redo the job in 1996 would be about a $200,000 cost. Also the member should be aware that the company involved who supplied the oil, discussions have been ongoing about liability and a claim settlement so a significant portion of the dollars I have mentioned are Autopac claims we hope to recover from the supplier because of product failure.

Mr. Jennissen: Some northerners are worried that the money that was spent on that failed project would then come out of the northern road budget. Is that a correct assumption?

Mr. Findlay: Hopefully, in the claim settlement a significant portion of the money that was spent is recovered but, if we go back and do it for $200,000, as I mentioned, it is coming out of the total budget, and the amount of dollars that have been flowing into northern roads has been increasing. Right now in the program book there is about $116 million for the projects that have been programmed. Some are tendered. Some will be tendered in due course but, of that, 10.5 percent is allocated to the North, which is higher than the figures that the member and some of his colleagues have been using. So there is a greater recognition of the impact of those roads on people and the work that needs to be done.

I do not think that the member needs to worry that the money is taken out of the North. We are flowing more money in on a continuous basis and it is a recognition of the increased economic activity that is happening up there. I think the member also should know that the actual kilometres driven in the whole province in that region where we are spending 10 or 10.5 percent of the program dollars is 5.2 percent of the kilometres driven. Other people who will find that out will be jealous.

Mr. Jennissen: I would like to switch now to winter roads because, next to used car inspections and so on, that seems to be the area I get the most letters, from people concerned about winter roads or road conditions or plowing roads and so on.

First of all, I would like to start by just checking with the minister then, 15.2(f), the winter road budget for this year, is down by approximately $575,000. Is that correct?

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Finance--Highways and Transportation.

Mr. Findlay: This is a finance question. Wake up, Sir. Mr. Chairman, we are going to loosen you up yet.

This is an accounting question. Just hope I can get it clear, so if I do not make it clear, the member has to ask some more questions.

I am sure he is looking at '95-96 first; '96-97, you see a change of $2.575 million to $2 million. What it mainly reflects is that for SERDAC in the past we used to budget in here 100 percent of the cost and then recover 50 percent from the federal government, or from SERDAC in terms of federal money that flowed there. Now we are only budgeting 50 percent of the cost, and the other 50 percent flowing directly from the federal government to SERDAC. So it is an accounting change.

* (0910)

The kilometres of road that are built and all that stay the same, and there has been a negotiated contract price with SERDAC. But it is mainly an accounting change of how the federal money flows. Instead of coming to us, and we spend it and recover it from them, it flows directly to SERDAC.

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, and that is what I thought I was reading as well. I just wanted to make sure that that was indeed the case.

I would like to ask: What were the reasons, historical or otherwise, that winter roads in the northwest quadrant of this province, specifically, let us say, Brochet, Lac Brochet or Tadoule Lake, were never funded by the province or, as far as I know, the federal government, as some roads appear to be funded, especially in the northeast, but not in that part of the world? I have never been able to understand why that was so inconsistent.

Mr. Findlay: The network that is under the jurisdiction of the department is about 1,600 kilometres, and, in addition to those 1,600 kilometres, which the member is aware of, which they are, there are other privately built roads, generally by resource-based companies. They have been building them in the past, continue to build them, so that is why there is no provincial money in those roads. I guess at some point in the past they decided it was in their interest to build it, and they were going to pay for building it. That was the way it was set up, and that is the way it remains.

There are the department roads which are 1,600 kilometres, and we do not know quite the kilometrage of these other roads that are built by private interests.

Mr. Jennissen: So what we are saying is that an isolated community in one part of the province that is serviced by a winter road as compared to another isolated community that is serviced by a winter road, community B could be paying far more for grocery use, for gasoline, and so on because of the tolls on the private road. Is that correct?

Mr. Findlay: The status of department versus private has been in place for a fairly long period of time, and there has been no request, certainly no formal request, to change that process. In the communities that the member is thinking of, the private provider puts the road in and, in some fashion, I guess, recovers the costs of his putting this road in. But one must also remember that the original purpose of winter roads was for movement of goods in in the wintertime. Clearly those roads, in terms of their use, have expanded to become a significant artery for citizens to use, so the standard that might have been acceptable 10 years ago, a better standard is desired on our roads at this point in time. But there is no request for changing those two statuses, and, to the best of my knowledge, the two statuses are working.

Mr. Jennissen: I am still concerned over the fact that two similar isolated communities, when compared, prices for commodities in one are significantly higher because tolls are extracted from the citizens living in that community, and I guess I am just wondering out loud. I do not know the historical background of all this.

I am just wondering out loud why we do not have that all under one umbrella. I do know that I have been to communities like Lac Brochet and, if I am not wrong, I believe that a litre of gasoline, the cost of a litre of gasoline is 29 cents higher because of the toll being charged. The toll varies on the large trucks from somewhere between six and $9,000. So it is a significant amount of money. That has to be recouped by the people building the road, I admit, but it ultimately means more for the goods that are being bought, or the groceries being bought by fairly poor people, and a lot of them are on social assistance. That concerned me. On the one hand, they are doing that in that community. On the other hand, they do not have to pay that toll because the federal and the provincial government have worked together to provide the winter road. I guess, it seems like there are two classes of citizens, and that is what worries me.

Mr. Findlay: I do not have anything further that I can say to the member that would relieve his concerns. It is just an historical arrangement that has been in place for a long time. There has been no request to consider otherwise, and probably having it under the current process, it is the most cost-efficient in total. Serving those numbers of people, I do not know what numbers there are in the community. I do not know the purpose for which the communities really exist. Is it because of who builds the road? Are the jobs in the community resource-based? There is a lot of criteria that had to be considered before you could determine whether you change the status, but it has been that way for a long time, and you know, there is no precipitous reason in front of us to consider changing it.

Mr. Jennissen: But the minister is saying if there were some requests made by a community or a band or a council, and I am thinking mainly in Brochet, Lac Brochet, Tadoule, possibly South Indian to some degree, or Granville Lake, but basically, I think, Lac Brochet and Tadoule, if people were to get organized and ask, you know, could the toll cost be eliminated entirely by the provincial government or in conjunction possibly with the federal government picking up that tab, would that be a possibility?

Now I am not saying that is better than the other way. I am also very sympathetic to the fact that there are northerners working creating those winter roads, and you know, creating jobs, and we would like to protect that, but it is expensive enough to live up North without that added little burden for paying tolls, and the tolls are expensive. So, I guess, I am just asking the minister if there were those requests, would they be seriously entertained? Could there be a change in policy?

Mr. Findlay: Any request that comes in always has to be considered and it would have to be analyzed. You would have to determine whether you could get some federal support, cost-sharing, because you know the federal government has a lot of responsibility for the North. But to tell you the dollars are scarce and it is not easy to add costs into a system, and it would not be an easy process to come to a conclusion that we would start spending more when there is currently a system to get the roads in place. But any requests that come in would be certainly given significant consideration.

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, I would like to turn now to a winter roads study 1994 prepared by John M. D. MacDonald. I read this with a great degree of interest. I think it is an excellent study. MacDonald recommends, MacDonald Enterprises Limited recommends 13 recommendations on pages 35 and 36, and I am particularly interested in the first three recommendations. I am wondering if the minister could enlighten me as to whether these recommendations are being worked on or taken seriously or will be implemented or whether they have not been looked at at all.

Mr. Findlay: We do not have the report with us at the moment. What are the top three recommendations that he is referring to?

* (0920)

Mr. Jennissen: The first recommendation is that all winter roads in northern Manitoba funded by the Manitoba government should become public roads under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Highways and Transportation and be administered under The Highway Traffic Act and other pertinent acts in regard to transportation. The travelling public should have free access to all public roads in Manitoba. Maybe I should read the other two as well.

The second one is that Crown land use permits should be discontinued for community connector roads in northern Manitoba. Toll roads should not be used or considered for winter road use in Manitoba--and that was the point we were discussing earlier. Thirdly, that there should be an overview committee consisting of the deputy ministers of Highways and Transportation, Natural Resources and Northern and Native Affairs to review all winter road proposals, either public or private.

The No. 4, of course, I do not want to get into that, but it seems they want to go to open public tender system which might bias, again, some First Nation communities, so we have some concerns with that. But anyway, the general question was whether those recommendations are being actively considered.

Mr. Findlay: In the broad sense, the report is there. There are some recommendations. Certainly, consideration continues to be given, but on the very first one there, all roads be deemed public roads, and then the rules of The Highway Traffic Act apply would be the end result. We went through some consideration of that approximately a year and a half, two years ago, and we basically rejected at that point in time and said no to that particular recommendation, because if you did that, you would require all vehicles up there to be licensed. Currently, there are a lot of vehicles that run in those northern communities that are unlicensed. They are not running on our public roads so it saves them that kind of cost.

There was also, as I recall, the requirement that we should have speed limits in place and that we have enforcement of speed limits and so on. In other words, there was a fair bit of comment that would indicate that to bring northern rules into those communities would not necessarily be accepted, and I think those roads crossed nine different reserves, and four or five of those nine said they did not want our rules to apply on the roads to their particular lands.

So I think in balance the decision was that for the time being there was no positive useful purpose to include them all as public roads and then enforce all the rules and regulations of The Highway Traffic Act. It would have more of a negative impact on the community in terms of costs and restrictions as opposed to the current high level of freedom they have in the way they operate. There was no evidence that changing the process of rule enforcement would do much for the communities or the people involved. So that is the reason why that one was not acted on. It might be good in theory, but in practice there was not enough support to warrant our proceeding with it. The rest of them, we will continue to consider the merit of them over the course of time.

I think there is also a recommendation there suggesting the federal government play a more active role, and we would always like that, but their agenda right now is to back out of a lot of the things they do as opposed to add to what they do. So it would be a difficult discussion to entertain with them.

Mr. Jennissen: Is the province liable if private vehicles have accidents on winter toll roads, and do such roads have speed limits, and do normal regulations and policing apply? I am not sure if all that is under the minister's purview, but I am not clear on just, you know, what is legal and is not legal on those private toll roads.

Mr. Findlay: Effectively, I answered that, Mr. Chairman, in the previous answer, that they are not designated in the public road system. Therefore, the laws of The Highway Traffic Act will not apply, and I think the majority, certainly in our survey of a couple of years ago the majority would say the way it is is quite satisfactory for the time being.

I know full well--I mean, as we went through the discussion that is where I became knowledgable that the use of those roads had changed from just freight movement to citizen movements, so you say, well, hey, maybe now we should be having speed limits and all those associated Highway Traffic Act regulations in place, but on further analysis, no.

With regard to licensing of vehicles particularly, there was not a lot of positive to be served other than more revenue for the government, and it was not going to serve the communities or the citizens well, and the decision was not to proceed with including them in the public network.

Mr. Jennissen: I guess I am still a bit unclear. If I am travelling a private toll road, let us say I am on my way to Lac Brochet, and I have an accident, am I still covered then?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, if you are driving a vehicle and your own vehicle is licensed, and you have Autopac insurance, then Autopac will cover it, as has been the history. If you are driving an unlicensed vehicle, of course, you are not covered.

Mr. Jennissen: Looking at the winter road map, I was not sure whether there was a winter road to Granville Lake or whether there will be a winter road to Granville Lake. Can you clarify that for me?

Mr. Findlay: No, there is no winter road to Granville Lake.

Mr. Jennissen: Was there ever a winter road to Granville Lake? I was under the impression that at one time there had been one from Leaf Rapids, and I could not find out for sure.

Mr. Findlay: We are not aware that there was a designated winter road at all. Past history, we are talking 20, 30 years ago, there were a lot of roads put in by Cats, by people for various reasons, and it might have been one of those kinds of roads that was usable in a certain fashion, but it was not part of the department's winter road activity.

Mr. Jennissen: Okay, I would like to switch a little bit to snowplowing, and I have been getting quite a number of calls and also letters, and I can show the minister some of the letters, with regard to cottagers, usually cottagers around Schist Lake near Flin Flon or South Athapapuskow Lake in Cranberry Portage or the Simonhouse Bible Camp road, places that used to be plowed out by the Department of Highway crews, and these roads are no longer plowed out, and it is creating a lot of hassle and headache.

I am wondering, because historically that system prevailed where Department of Highways plows after, you know, doing the initial main plowing of roads, would do the side plowing, and that seems to have changed, and it is creating quite a bit of confusion and consternation and anger in the North. I wonder if the minister would address that briefly.

* (0930)

Mr. Findlay: Are you referring to people that live in these cottages on a year-round basis versus just a summer cottage?

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, in most cases they live there year-round, especially in the Schist Lake area, but also in the Athapapuskow area. In the case of Simonhouse Bible Camp it is a camp that is used mainly in the early spring, through the whole summer, and sometimes those roads are clogged with snow, and they have historically been plowed out by the Department of Highways people.

Mr. Findlay: Are the developments the member is talking about cottages on Crown land or on private developments?

Mr. Jennissen: I am not sure. I believe they are the Schist Lake, I have the Schist Lake cottage association. That used to be Crown land that was leased out and that may now have been purchased in some cases, not in all cases, I believe.

Mr. Findlay: Most of those development roads are not public roads, are not Department of Highways or government of Manitoba roads. They are roads of the developer, and we will plow, have plowed them and will plow them on an accounts collectable basis. In other words, it is private property essentially, and we will plow them for a fee. That is why I asked if it is Crown or if it is private development. If it is private development then, you know, the taxpayers would be quite unhappy if we went into certain regions and plowed people's private roads and did not plow their lanes, which is their private property. So we have to stick to spending our money on the provincial network and, on private property or private developments, they can either have the private sector do it or, if they can arrive at an accounts collectable arrangement with us, we can do it.

So probably they have been more willing to pay in the past than they are at the current time. I am not exactly positive on the exact detail. Just because there is a road does not mean it is a public road.

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, I am aware of that. I would like to put it in a little bit of context. I have received a number of letters that people in those cottages received from the Department of Highways, I guess some of the regional directors perhaps, saying that they were switching from the Department of Highways plowing out those roads, as they had historically done and being paid fee for service and that these people should now go to private contractors.

The problem is then that they could not find private contractors, either with equipment that was big enough, or were willing to do it, or the place was so isolated that it just was not worth it for a private contractor to spend hours driving down there, whereas the department plows just go right by the place, for example, Simonhouse Lake, which is, I guess, 40 kilometres out of Cranberry.

Mr. Findlay: I think, Mr. Chairman, the broader policy is that the private contractors in particular are never happy, if they are able there to do jobs, that we step in and take the jobs away from them. So we tend not to want to compete with the private sector in those kinds of circumstances but, if there are particular circumstances like the member relayed to us, that a private contractor does not want to do it, cannot afford to do it, is not interested, we are prepared to do it. So there is always that fine line between where we should be doing jobs that the private industry could do versus where the private industry is not interested. There is always a fine line, because the private sector people are paying taxes and they get upset when their tax dollars are competing against them to take away their jobs.

So it is an ongoing issue, but if the member has particular circumstances or individuals or locations that we should be giving consideration to because there is not a private supplier, we would be interested in knowing that. But we have been tending not to want to aggressively be in there doing jobs where there is a private provider of like services.

Mr. Jennissen: If the people that were refused these services by the Department of Highways could find a private contractor, they are quite willing to go that route. However, in the three cases that I mentioned, which is South Athapapuskow Lake and Cranberry, Schist Lake and Simonhouse Bible Camp, they could not find somebody else, and, apparently, the Department of Highways was not willing to accommodate them.

I am wondering if the minister will allow me to read just the one letter from Cyndy Woods from the Schist Lake Cottage Association, which represents quite a number of letters. I am quite willing to give them to the minister, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. It would give him an idea of what they are really trying to say out there but are basically concerned about Schist Lake, South Athapapuskow and Simonhouse Bible Camp.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Does the honourable member wish to table the letter?

Mr. Jennissen: I am wondering if you would allow me to put this one letter on the record as a symbol of a whole bunch of other letters? Would that be acceptable? Then the minister would have a better context.

It is to the honourable minister, and it states: “Dear Sir: As president and on behalf of the Schist Lake Cottage Association, I am writing to bring your attention to a matter of grave concern to the inhabitants of the 200 homes in this area. I am referring to the snowplowing of the 2.5 mile road called 'the Point Road' that connects this subdivision to #10 Highway about six miles outside Flin Flon.

“This road has a high, rocky-sided shoulder that requires a plow with a 'wing' on it to throw the snow up and out of the way. As only the Highways department and one contractor in Cranberry Portage have this plow, we are severely limited in our choices. For many, many years, the Dept. of Highways has plowed this road on a fee for service basis. That is until this year. were informed in the late summer that Highways would no longer be servicing us as they would not compete with private contractors. The contractor in Cranberry is totally disinterested in us as his plow is in the bush and it is not worth his while to bring it out.

“We have struggled through this winter getting whatever we could muster to plow the road. To compound the problem this year, we have had a school bus added to the daily traffic. The safety of these children and also the inhabitants of this area is our utmost concern. We hope you will be concerned as well.

“I have begged, pleaded and beseeched Mr. Ron Meister, Dept. of Highways in The Pas, but he will not budge. I am hoping that you will realize the seriousness of our situation and help us prevent many serious accidents. We would like to return to our old system of calling the Highways Dept. and paying for services rendered. If you want a new payment method, we are open to any suggestions to arrive at a solution.

“Thank you for your time, and we hope we will hear from you. Sincerely, Cyndy Woods.”

I would like to give that letter to the minister, along with the letter from Bill Lyle and one from Dale Warkentin for Simonhouse Bible Camp.

Mr. Findlay: I thank the member for a copy of the letter because we will respond. I think the letter summed up really what we had said. It was a fee-for-service basis and indicated the department policy was obviously discussed and that was not to compete with the private sector where the private sector is capable and prepared to do the work. This letter does not say anything different, but we will look at it in terms of the circumstance of this last year and determine whether the citizens had an adequate level of service or not, based on the circumstances. It would appear from the letter that they could not get the kind of unit that was necessary to do the job, especially he mentioned school bus; that is a significant consideration. It will be acted on.

* (0940)

Mr. Jennissen: Would the minister also then act on the Simonhouse Bible Camp issue because this is a nonprofit camp, and it is quite a ways out of Cranberry Portage? When the plows go by, it is just like 10 minutes in and out. It is a very short distance. These people have a tremendous disadvantage and inconvenience right now, having changed the system. It is nonprofit. It is for young people. It is a wonderful camp, actually. I would recommend it to anybody if they ever want to use it. It has a world-class reputation. I really would like to see that camp serviced. Even the people that I have talked to in the local yard in Cranberry said, look, it would be no problem, but we are prohibited by the department from whipping in and out of there. The camp people are willing to pay a reasonable fee, but right now they are in a dilemma, and I am just wondering if the minister would address that.

Mr. Findlay: Yes, we will look at it in terms of balance, whether we could go back to what we were doing and not cause a reaction from the private sector. We obviously must have been doing it this winter, but we will look at it.

Mr. Jennissen: The final question I have on this type of issue is--and the minister can correct me if I am wrong. The way I understand it is that in the past, if Department of Highways plows went into these cottage roads, they would charge a certain fee, but the amount of money was not necessarily returned to the region or to that area. It would go to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) or to general revenue, whatever. Therefore there was really not much incentive to spend your local hard-earned dollars, if I can put it that way, in doing that if you were not going to get the money back directly. So can that be addressed as well?

Mr. Findlay: That is the government policy, that those accounts flow into the general revenue of the province through the Minister of Finance. So that is a question that the member might want to put to the Minister of Finance about a different method of accounting. In our particular case, we do jobs of that nature, but that has been the Minister of Finance's policy. That kind of policy has been in place for a long, long time. There is a certain bit of aggravation with that circumstance, but that is the way it is. You might want to address it at another time.

Mr. Jennissen: I thank the minister for that answer, and it is aggravating because obviously, from the people's point of view that are manning the snowplow, the more you plow, the more money you lose to the region, but that is not much of an incentive.

Mr. Findlay: But do not forget, all our dollars are for maintenance, in this case, from the Minister of Finance, so it is not that we lose it totally, but I can understand at the local level they see it as being lost. You must remember all our dollars for maintenance initially comes from the Minister of Finance, I guess, to have revenue to build a budget component, for us to do our maintenance.

Mr. Jennissen: I would like to switch now briefly to Repap and, you know, we are all very proud of Repap and the fact that it is creating a lot of jobs in the North, and we want to expedite Repap as much as possible, but we have some concerns.

One of the concerns was associated with the original Repap deal, that there was, I believe, $92 million worth of provincial construction to go with that. That would have been, you know, an awful lot of money in the North and would have created a lot of jobs. Now that is, I believe, not only put on hold, I think that has been totally cancelled.

Could the minister explain? Is there no longer any need for that kind of road system or upgrading roads or building new roads?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, the member is referring to the original agreement signed with Repap, and there were certain expenditure guidelines that they had to meet, and then we, you know, the province would be spending in the vicinity of $90 million on roads.

There is a new agreement in place now, or a rewritten agreement, that does not have that component in it. Certainly, the expenditure guidelines or horizons that Repap have are different, so that highway commitment expenditure is not there. I think the member could also reflect that that would be basically a whole year's capital budget for the department, meaning for a year we would have to stop projects everywhere in the province, and that would be exeedingly unpopular and would put us a year behind in everything we are doing, so it was a very difficult thing to meet in any instance.

At this stage, we are certainly in discussion with Repap about permitting arrangements that can facilitate their ability to move product and not negatively impact our roads, so there is an ongoing discussion in that context, and, you know, they bring forward certain examples out of Saskatchewan, and say, well, you get these kinds of considerations in Saskatchewan, why not in Manitoba.

Sometimes when we investigate those stories, they are not quite as lenient as we are led to believe, but our idea in terms of arriving at different arrangements for weights and haulages is that we have to consider the impact on the roads, and we can only allow it at that time when there are little or no additional impacts. That discussion is an ongoing process, but, clearly, we are not in any kind of commitment position on that volume of roads, and today you just cannot find $90 million lying around anywhere to build a series of roads that serves one industry.

Mr. Jennissen: I guess for northerners the question became why the promises were made or why the original agreement was made if there was no real serious attempt at keeping it, or maybe at that time it looked like the thing to do, but we are not always sure whether it was an election promise or whether we were serious about the $90 million.

The question I have right now though is, would the minister release a list of all the road work that was proposed under the 1989 Repap deal so we know what was involved?

Mr. Findlay: We do not have a map that would indicate all the roads that had been indicated. I would have to assume that they were indicated over the course of time. Probably two roads that were involved would be Highway 10 and Highway 39, but the member must remember that back in those years, pulp prices were pretty good, but all of a sudden they crashed. The world price of pulp crashed, so it changed considerably Repap's financial projections, and I would have to also assume at this point in time that the volumes they are handling and moving are much different than what was initially proposed.

So there was a network that was considered. Certainly, the agreement is changed. That network that they are using today is undoubtedly different than what was initially proposed, and where there are particular roads that are of significant need or whether their use of the roads impacts the roads, we will respond in our annual highway program maintenance and capital commitments.

* (0950)

We will respond as need be, but there is nothing written in any agreement now that says that we will spend X dollars or on any particular road. They are like any other industry that thinks the road that they use needs work. We will respond where and when possible in looking at province-wide priorities.

Mr. Jennissen: So it would be safe to say that no work had actually been done under what was conceived, and there is nothing on the books right now.

Mr. Findlay: The member is right.

Mr. Jennissen: I would like to switch now to some status reports, and they do not have to be very lengthy. I am quite aware of the time constraints, but just a feeling of what is being done on specific roads. Of course, I know that in driving 391 there was some definite improvement. Could the minister update me on 391?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his comment that things have improved, and certainly we have been actively involved with the 391 committee, and with Barbara Bloodworth as chairman. We have had several meetings with department staff talking about priorities, and it has been educational both ways to have an understanding of what the citizens want as a standard road, and the citizens have an understanding of our financial restrictions that we are under. Just so the member--I do not know if I mentioned yesterday or not--but at this current time there is about a billion dollars of requests in front of us and we have a hundred million each year. So that means we can do 10 percent of the requests.

I think we have responded, as I have given the member earlier, in terms of spending more money in the North as a reflection of the concerns brought to us by the 391 committee, as example, and there is an ongoing committee discussion process on 373.

Just to go back over the activities that were involved on 391 in '95-96, and then I will talk about '96-97 activities, too. Last year, base and AST were completed from Nelson House easterly for 16.8 kilometres at a cost of $1.3 million. A seal coat was completed from Suwannee River to Turnbull road for 36 kilometres for $348,000. A seal coat was completed from Mistuska Lake to Hughes Lake for 34 kilometres at a cost of $248,000. Spot grade improvements from Nelson House to Suwannee River were carried out at a cost of $57,000, and $250,000 expended for additional gravel maintenance on the section from Nelson House to Suwannee River. That is '95-96.

Now, proposed for the '96-97, grade and gravel will be carried out this summer on from 21.1 kilometres west of 280 for over a stretch of 14.6 kilometres--estimated cost, $3.3 million. A second seal is scheduled this summer for the AST section from Nelson House east for 16.8 kilometres at an estimated cost of $120,000. Spot grade improvements will be carried out from the Nelson House access road to Suwannee River--estimated cost, $72,000. Additional gravel over and above normal maintenance gravel will be placed on the roadway this summer. Additional brushing will be carried out from Rat River to Suwannee, River as well as completion of the brushing on South Bay road, which was scheduled for '95, at an estimated cost of $77,000. So one really big project to grade and gravel for 14.6 kilometres is scheduled for this year. It is in the process of being tendered.

Mr. Jennissen: What is the status of the proposed, I guess, way--in the future, proposed road from South Bay around the lake to South Indian Lake? Hopefully, that would include a bridge as part, I believe, of the flood agreement. Is that still in the same status it was last year?

Mr. Findlay: The stretch of road that goes from the South Bay road around the west side of the lake towards South Indian Lake, some work was done this past winter on survey and design, and survey and design continue. The member mentioned, they hoped there would be a bridge. Bridges are always very expensive. So at this point in time a ferry would be the proposed route of crossing the river there to South Indian Lake. So ferry plus road is the proposal. It is a 22-kilometre stretch.

Mr. Jennissen: Regarding the Moose Lake Road, 384, could I have a brief update on that one as well?

Mr. Findlay: What is proposed, Mr. Chairman, on 384 is just spot improvements, but I can also tell the member that a meeting was held involving people from Moose Lake and Repap about a cost-sharing arrangement. They are certainly talking a new stretch of road from The Pas straight east to hook up with 384. They also have aspirations of going east of Moose Lake beyond South Moose Lake and Cedar Lake, go east of there to access cutting area over there. So that discussion is an ongoing process. I do not remember the dollars involved, but there were sizeable dollars involved to build the kind of road that the Moose Lake community would like in order to stay in the timber supply business that they would like to be in, and Repap's ability to pay. So it is in discussion. I would say it would be about two, three, four months ago that we had a meeting with all the parties. So it is still in process as to how it can be cost-shared to be doable.

* (1000)

Mr. Jennissen: The road to Sherridon and Cold Lake still concerns a lot of people, not only because it is a winding road and a narrow road, there are a lot of pulp trucks on this road as well. There have been some very serious accidents on that road in the last few years. We have requests from the people in the area if that road could become a designated road or a higher status road, and they continually ask for more brushing and more upgrading. Could we have a status on that?

Mr. Findlay: Just so the member is aware of the past history, this road was initially built by CFI Manfor, now known as Repap, and it was built to their standard for their type of use. It was really a pioneer standard. It was a trail cut out through the bush and built to a standard to haul logs and not for public road use. Ultimately we now have it in terms of maintaining it 100 percent, but it was a crude pioneer road and the cost to bring it up to a standard that the public would want is certainly not cheap.

We are in the process of replacing some culverts that are in poor condition, and a bridge survey has been completed and some geotechnical evaluation is ongoing with regard to that bridge, but I just, you know, caution the member, it was built for a log road really, a log haul road, and now that it is ours for maintenance, we clearly realize it is not reaching a public use standard, but the cost to bring it to that--I think it is a 38 kilometre stretch. It is fairly sizeable. It was never intended by the people who originally constructed it to be a public standard road. So it is not in our designated network, and it would be costly to reach the standard the member asks for.

Mr. Jennissen: Is there more brushing planned for this summer? That is one of the concerns about Moose walking out of the bush and onto the road, and people cannot see them coming out because of the brush.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, there is some $250,000 designated for spot improvements on the road, spot grade improvements, and $20,000 of brush clearing was done last year. So it continues to be done, and I guess those are kind of affordable items at this point in time, but a rebuild to bring it to a public standard, as I said earlier, would be very expensive for us.

Mr. Jennissen: Repap is working in the area between Sherridon and Pukatawagan, Mathias Colomb First Nation. The Repap roads must be very close to Pukatawagan, the settlement of Pukatawagan. Is there any possibility that eventually that community could be linked to the rest of the road network, Sherridon onto Highway No. 10?

Mr. Findlay: You are referring to the road straight north of Highway 10 which is east of Flin Flon running up to Sherridon, and you are talking about going straight north all the way to Pukatawagan; a new road, is that what the request is?

Mr. Jennissen: Basically I am asking if the minister is aware if there are any plans in the works or if it is a possibility even that the people from Pukatawagan could have access using the Repap roads to get on to the Sherridon road to get onto Highway No. 10. Right now, I do not know what the status of that is.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, the department is aware of what the member has requested. We are not exactly sure where the road follows that Repap is using at the moment, but there would have to be some fair discussion with Repap to allow public use of the portion they have done, and, certainly, there would be a cost to go north of the cutting area to Pukatawagan, so it is in a discussion phase, but I would not want to lead the member to believe that that means there is going to be a conclusion to get on with it in the short term.

Again, these are highly expensive things to do, and you have to balance requests all over the province with regard to level of use and so on, but I can clearly appreciate the community of Pukatawagan, if there is any hope of getting a network that gets them to the provincial road system, they would be very, very happy and want to get it, but it is in very preliminary discussion. That is all I can say.

Mr. Jennissen: I raised it because people of the Mathias Colomb First Nation often ask about the possibility of road access, and because the railroad only services the community somewhat irregularly, about twice a week, it is fairly inconvenient to get out from Pukatawagan, which brings me to another point which is a bit off tangent. I was going to ask it later, but I will bring it in here, and I would like the minister to comment on this or respond.

Chief Ralph Caribou of the Mathias Colomb First Nation, Pukatawagan, and Jerry Storie, superintendent of Frontier School Division area 4 in Cranberry Portage, are trying to establish a railvan service between Cranberry Portage and Pukatawagan. This is to improve the biweekly rail service between Cranberry, Sherridon and Pukatawagan.

A number of high school students from Pukatawagan attend school at Cranberry. Would the minister and his department lend their support to this project and ensure that this project succeeds, insofar as is possible? I do not know all the ins and outs about the legalities of running your own van, I guess, not your own van, but a van that would be basically designated for transporting students back and forth from Cranberry to Pukatawagan but would also stop at Sherridon.

It would involve the federal government, obviously. It seems like a very bold initiative, but it would address the situation of getting people in and out of Pukatawagan.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, the rail network that the member is talking about is CN Rail, and they are a federally regulated railroad. If somebody was going to run that sort of unit on there, they would have to negotiate and get clearance from CN to use it. I do not know what role we could play. It is really a relationship between the service provider, CN and the federal government.

In theory, doing it makes some sense. It may be efficient in terms of getting kids to education, and that is very good, but the best we could do would be to facilitate a process in some fashion, but it would require acceptance by CN and the federal government, being the regulator of this national railway network, to concede to allow it to happen. That is all I can say.

Mr. Jennissen: We are trying to make the initiative work, and we just hope that the province will support us and is on board. I am not sure exactly either what direct role the province could play, but if they could facilitate it or help us in some way, we will count on them.

Mr. Findlay: Yes, the best I can say is the initiative makes sense from a practical point of view, and we would do what we could to help it proceed, but, by ourselves, we do not have anything other than a facilitator potential.

* (1010)

Mr. Jennissen: I would like to move on to Highways 373 and 374, and I would like to read into the record a letter, a fairly short letter, from Chief Ron Evans from Norway House First Nation--I am sorry, Chief Sidney Garrioch. A carbon copy went to Chief Ron Evans. It says: Dear Minister Findlay, over the weekend a lot of my people went out for the weekend. I even took a trip myself. Let me tell you, Mr. Minister, that PR No. 373 is at its worst again. In fact, it is a crime to travel on that road--now that is dated May 21, 1996. It is a shame that my people and all the rest of the aboriginal people in our area, including Norway House, have to accept this kind of treatment. It is dangerous. In fact, right now it is more dangerous than the streets of Bosnia. Our people continue to pay high Autopac premiums. Our driver licences are escalating as a result of accidents on that road. Rocks and stones fly like bullets in Bosnia, breaking our windshields on our vehicles. Our new vehicles get stone chips. I can only hope that some day you and the Premier can come down the road by vehicle and see the picture for yourselves. We need something done immediately. Yours truly, Chief Sidney Garrioch.

And a carbon copy, as I said before, to Chief Ron Evans, Norway House First Nation. Could the minister please comment on that?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, we are clearly aware that in certain weather conditions, there are bad conditions on the road. The deputy just reminds me that he drove that road last year and he was driving 100 kilometres and people were passing him. Sometimes the damage to vehicles is not necessarily done by the road. It is done by not necessarily driving at a speed one would consider appropriate for the circumstances. It is a road with very low volume of use. We have an ADT, or average annual daily traffic count, of 100 to 150 vehicles and, again, I say that is very, very low.

We recognize there are people who need it, that use it, and a number of projects have been done in the past. I will give the member those and the projects that are proposed for '96-97. In the past, we have done grade and gravel upgrade and asphalt surface treatment between Rossville junction to the airport, a distance of 8.6 kilometres for $4 million; relocated and constructed 3.6 kilograms of new grade in the vicinity of Jenpeg, $1.07 million; clay-capped and regraveled 46 kilometres of the cobblestone area north of Minago River bridge to five kilometres south of Sipiwesk Lake, $1 million. So there is $4 million, $5 million, over $6 million of expenditure that has been done in the past.

At this point we are proposing from Highway 6 going east for the first 12.4 kilometres a project worth $1.6 million, and the project has been tendered last fall. The contractor has done some crushing in preparation for that project this year. The next section, the next 12.4 kilometres to Sipiwesk Junction, is scheduled to be advertised this year, again, a significant cost of $1.9 million. So, right there, there is $3.5-million worth of projects. It is grading plus a calcium-stabilized base.

Calcium-stabilized base--for the member's knowledge--is a new project, a new initiative of the department. The member is aware of dust reduction by spraying calcium on the surface, so it has to be done on a repeated basis. We are proposing in this area and other areas of the province that calcium-stabilized base chlorides be used, wherein calcium is mixed with the entire gravel that is to be placed, and it will reduce the dust by some 80 percent. It gives you a gradable surface. In other words, it will be graded like any gravel surface with significant dust reduction.

I know the member is saying, well, why do we not just put some pavement down? Again, it is cost. A thin layer of pavement which is all that this volume of traffic would justify is always subject to weight restrictions; therefore, you impede the commercial use of a road like this and particularly in the springtime when significant restrictions are in place. In this location and many others in the province, we are trying to find another way to have a surface that is gradable, has a low level of dust but not subject to restrictions for commercial use. It is a significantly new initiative. We certainly hope it works to our level of expectation. It is an affordable way to reduce dust, have a surface that is unrestricted in a commercial sense. There are proposals for the 24-kilometre stretch of $3.5 million of work on that particular road from Highway 6 going east.

Mr. Jennissen: I had occasion to talk with a person who had worked on that road--and I believe for a number of years in fact--and he felt that some of the construction projects on that road seemed to zero in on parts that did not really need fixing. His constant comment was that it appears that they are fixing more for ease of fixing, that is, easy access. The parts that needed to be fixed were being ignored, like they are redoing things that were already fairly good and ignoring parts that were much more difficult. Now, I have no way of verifying that is exactly true or not, but that was certainly the comment.

Mr. Findlay: I cannot comment either. You know, we have staff, we have engineers that make assessments where the appropriate places are to expend money on the road. But just to get a broader level of understanding, as we have had success with different road committees throughout the south, it usually involves local elected officials on these road committees. The member knows a 391 committee was struck. I had hoped initially for a committee that would cover all the northern roads, try to rationalize where their most urgent needs were, but there has been, on a road basis, a 391 committee formed. A 373 committee is also functioning involving Cross Lake First Nation, Cross Lake Community Council, Norway First Nation and Norway House Community Council.

They have had two meetings with regional staff to discuss what are the priorities and look at the departments and perceived sequence of events that should happen on the road, try to maybe get around those kind of circumstances where they think that we are doing things that are not the right things to do. It gives a chance for those individuals who attend the meetings to have an understanding of why they were picked and, if there are reasons not to agree with that, to discuss it and rationalize it and come to a conclusion.

I can assure the member, my objective is to be sure we do the right things for the right reasons. It is totally foolish to do something, spend money on a project and then somebody says, well, that was not the one that should have been done. You do not get any credit for that but the money has been spent. That is not a position to be in. So this is an effort to maximize the efficiency of how scarce dollars are allocated to serve all the various users' needs as best we can, and it also helps, I said earlier, to have an understanding that we just cannot do everything that is wanted in the time frame that people want to have it done. We have to rationalize where their highest priorities are, and a committee is functioning on 373 in that context.

* (1020)

Mr. Jennissen: I forgot to ask the minister when we dealt with 391 just a moment ago whether there was anything planned for the Lynn Lake end, because that pavement is quite broken. I know it is on permafrost and subject to frost heave and so on. It is a fairly rough road. Has anything been slated to fix 391 at that end?

Mr. Findlay: A sealcoat project was done in 1995 on 34 kilometres from Weepaskow Lake to Hughes Lake but, in terms of that stretch, at this point in time nothing further is scheduled other than normal maintenance of the road. By rough, you mean that the surface is breaking, it requires patching and then it leads to some of the roughness but, in terms of redoing the surface, no, nothing is planned at this point, nothing is programmed at this point.

Mr. Jennissen: I would like to switch a little bit to airports, and I have a lot of questions on airports but, because I know the time constraints, we are going to keep it fairly short. Lynn Lake is wrestling with the fact of trying to take over their own airport. It is a huge airport and, because of downloading of the feds, it has become quite a strain for the people involved, the community involved. I know the minister had written a letter once supporting the remote status. Is there anything new on that airport or helping those people cope with running that airport?

Mr. Findlay: Clearly the federal government has made decisions on airports, precipitous decisions which they are just turning them over to the communities over a five-year basis. I think they lose the so-called subsidy, 20 percent per year over five years. We have written at least two letters in support of Lynn Lake to be designated remote status, which would fit a federal government category that would allow some level of continued funding.

We are not aware of any written comment back from the federal government saying yes or no in terms of an ultimate decision. But another way to say it is, we have got nothing positive to report in terms of the federal government responding to our request that it be considered remote or Lynn Lake's request that it be considered remote. We supported the community but have not got anything positive to report in terms of federal government response at this point. Our position with the feds has not changed at all.

Mr. Jennissen: The last time I was in Lac Brochet along with my honourable colleague Mr. Robinson, we talked with Chief Sarah Samuel. One of the concerns of that community was the state of its airport. As you know, airports are vital to the North, not just Lac Brochet, but Tadoule and Brochet and other places as well.

The concern at Lac Brochet was that the airport terminal was much too small and needed to be upgraded. They compared it to Tadoule Lake, which is a smaller community which had a million-dollar upgrade of an airport. They felt also the fact that one person was working created all kinds of inconveniences because, if that person was filling fuel tanks or removing snow and so on, then the terminal itself would be closed or there would be no service there. They, being the community members, felt they were being somewhat ignored, and they felt strongly that that airport needed to be upgraded, both in terms of the manpower and also the building itself.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, there are two employees there, and, yes, the airport was built many, many years ago. Tadoule Lake was built in '89, so it was built to a better standard, no question about that, but to say that we can rebuild Lac Brochet in the near term, it is just not possible; there just are not the resources to do it.

We are involved with a lot of airports in the North and the capital rebuilding upgrade that many of them would like is just not achievable at this point in time. The costs are very high to do it, so we continue on a maintenance schedule and have a two-person staff there for the continued use of the airport. We know full well there is a lot of activity in all these small airports in the North. They are a vital lifeline, but we are just not able to respond to spend the kind of dollars that many people would like.

Could I ask the Chairman, is it possible to have a five-minute break at this point, if you do not mind?

Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to take a five-minute recess? [agreed]

The committee recessed at 10:27 a.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 10:35 a.m.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The Committee of Supply will please come to order, and we will continue with the Estimates of the Ministry of Highways and Transportation.

Mr. Jennissen: I have two very, very short questions, and then I would like to go on to future trends, which is really an area that I am very interested in. I know the minister is, as well. Unfortunately, we will not have much time to discuss it, but I will be able to raise some issues, and then, maybe, read the rest into the record and hopefully get some responses in the written form.

The question I have for the minister--and this just came within the last two days, a letter from a gentleman wanting to know about the cost of the new experimental bridge at Headingley. I know nothing about it, but maybe the minister could enlighten me, so I can respond to this gentleman.

Mr. Findlay: There is a Bridge Road, just south of Headingley, going over the Assiniboine River?

Mr. Jennissen: It was not exactly clear, Mr. Minister, on the location. He simply said, this newly designed bridge near Headingley.

Mr. Findlay: We built a new stretch of road from No.1 south towards the Assiniboine River; it would be a fifth of a mile or less. A new bridge will ultimately be built over the Assiniboine River. The bridge will be about $3.7 million, and Sammy Rizkalla, Department of Engineering at the University of Manitoba, wants to do a research project on what is called a carbon fibre reinforced plastic, which would replace the steel that would normally be used in that context on the bridge beams. Our understanding is that this fibre-reinforced plastic will be wired for some kind of computer analysis of the stress and strain over the course of time, looking for some more effective, cost-effective, use-effective way of building bridges of that nature. We have no reason to think it is any less capable than the normal steel-reinforced bridge that we would build.

Sammy Rizkalla has a significant national, international reputation as a bridge engineer, and this bridge will be built for him to use it as a research project.on an ongoing basis, but we are not aware that we are funding any component of the research. That is privately funded, but we build the bridge and he will do his research as he deems appropriate. The facts and figures that will be collected over the course of time will determine whether it performs better, is more cost effective, time effective, wear effective.

We are always interested in new ways of doing things that prolong the life and improve the performance of any kind of a structure.

Mr. Jennissen: The last question I would like to ask in this particular section is--I am sure the minister is aware of it, and I do not need a long answer--the twinning of Highway 59 south. There is a Highway 59 committee, and I am sure he gets these letters regularly. Just maybe a very brief update if that is in the cards or just where we are.

* (1040)

Mr. Findlay: Highway 59 south from the Perimeter to Ile des Chenes, about a 14 kilometre stretch that is proposed for upgrade over the course of the next few years. It is a twinning of the road; it is a twinning of the bridge crossing the floodway. It is a high-demand road in terms of traffic volumes. It runs around 4,500 to 5,000 vehicles a day. It has clearly been identified as a priority, to get on with it. The whole cost of that 14 kilometres is projected to be $60 million, so it is not a cheap project.

At this stage the bridge abutments at the floodway have been built. That is the twinned bridge; the existing bridge is there. Then, if we are going to go from two-lane to four-lane and build another bridge, the bridge abutments were built last year. At this stage the grading from the Perimeter to the floodway has been tendered for about $600,000, and then the bridge will be tendered this summer with the anticipation that it will be built over the next winter, which will be a $3.7 million project. The initial stage is to get four-lane from the Perimeter to south of the floodway, the most critical stage, and then further projects will continue reaching the whole 14 kilometres over the course of the next few years.

We have met with the Highway 59 committee each year, and we can never do it fast enough from their standpoint, but I think they understand some of the financial realities after these meetings that we are doing as much as we can as quick as we can. They clearly, at the first meeting, said it was the most important road in the province, that I should terminate every other expenditure in the province to do only that. I said that is absolutely undiscussable that we, having demands everywhere, have to do something for everybody on an ongoing basis, step by step by step. I think they have a broader appreciation of that now than they did.

So these committees are meeting with staff or with ministers, and it does help them to understand the circumstances we face and that the demands are much more than we can meet, but we meet them as fast as we can. I think the design of the road, and further questions on that, we just get on stage by stage to get it done.

Mr. Jennissen: I would like to now move to this fifth section that I talked about at the beginning, it is the future trends. I have a letter from a Marton F. Murphy, and I will table it for the minister, if I could have the old copy back. There is an interesting line in there which is basically a little off course here where he praises Autopac, and he says, it costs twice as much in Alberta to insure a car as it does in Manitoba. He has one line, which, coming from Ace Industries (Int'l) Corp., is rather an interesting line: “This proves that gov't who operate without a profit motive can do a much better job than foreign owned big business.” It sounds more like it should be coming from our side of the House, but anyway that is the line, but that is not the reason I quote Ace Industries.

Ace Industries, if I can just summarize, in this letter, this Marton F. Murphy states something to the effect that there is not a level playing field because asphalt is trucked from Montana to Winnipeg without barriers, but when Moose Jaw asphalt is being trucked to the United States--I suppose by Ace Industries--then the company faces what is called “Montana Preference” or “Buy America” or 10 percent penalties and this person argues in the letter that this is not a level playing field.

I guess the question that comes out of that that he wants answered is, is the department willing to support Canadian industry and Canadian trucking by buying Saskatchewan asphalt, thus levelling out the unfair competition? I think that is implied in this letter and I would be glad to table that. Could the minister comment on that?

Mr. Findlay: Does the person come from Saskatchewan?

Mr. Jennissen: It is based in Calgary.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Does the honourable minister wish to ask for clarification of the member for Flin Flon?

Mr. Findlay: Just leave the mike open and let us talk.

Mr. Chairperson: I am sorry.

Mr. Findlay: Rules are rules.

Mr. Chairperson: Rules are rules and I am here to keep order.

Mr. Findlay: You do a hell of a job.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Flin Flon, do you wish to clarify what your question is, please?

Mr. Jennissen: I do not have the letter in front of me at the moment, but I do believe that the company is based in Calgary and I believe there are two other sub-branches. I think one is in Moose Jaw. I presume they deal quite a bit with moving asphalt into this market and they feel that there is unfair competition. We talk about a level playing field, NAFTA and free trade, but when he wants to sell asphalt in Montana they stick on a 10 percent surcharge or whatever they are doing, and yet the Montana people can come into Winnipeg and there is no corresponding countervailing kind of a penalty.

Mr. Findlay: Well, certainly, the issue of allowing tenders to happen and be fulfilled across provincial borders reducing barriers between provinces has been a big issue in Canada. All provinces have signed on to--through the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism, through the Premier's discussions--lower the barriers and move away from preferential buying considerations. I am off on a slight tangent at the moment. I will get to the main part.

About two years ago, I recall, Saskatchewan tried to institute a preferential policy and even there their construction industry in Saskatchewan was opposed to it because what they could see happen if there is a preferential policy that only Saskatchewan companies could do business in Saskatchewan, those companies would be restricted. In Alberta and Manitoba there is a bit of a retaliation. We are, within Canada, moving to less barriers and more open bidding and getting away from preferences which used to be the norm, unfortunately.

* (1050)

When we put out a tender, several companies can bid to supply asphalt. All the bids come from a Canadian location. We are not sure at times where they might source their product. It may be a company out of Calgary or Regina or Winnipeg maybe bid on a project, but where they source their product from to supply that contract we are not aware. So whether there is a real barrier there, it is obviously created by a Montana policy. It has nothing to do with our policy which is open. Because we have scarce dollars, we search for the very best price that meets quality standards that we can get and where the company brings a product from is their choice to meet the tender that they submitted.

Mr. Jennissen: Now that the Crow rate is gone, what is the impact of this and the continuing rail line abandonment on future road costs? Is there an actual estimate of millions of dollars that we hear this $80-plus million or more being bandied about, and I have read elsewhere that there is no precise figure. But if this is a terrible cost, an added cost--and we have talked about this before--then, again, road costs will increase and it is further argument about not cutting back I guess. Would the minister comment on that?

Mr. Findlay: Well, I think the Crow rate change was a climax to a sequence of events that has been happening over the course of the last, particularly five years in terms of rural Manitoba. Back in the days when I was Minister of Agriculture, we certainly proposed and promoted the concept of farmers diversifying what they produce because in those days we did not pay very well at all. In fact, there were heavy government subsidies in place to keep farmers in grain production.

The process started that people started producing other crops, and then it became more and more diverse products to process. Different groups and individuals and companies started to look at Manitoba because they could see that our tax regime was favourable and attractive. We tried to streamline the processes of getting approvals for locating manufacturing and processing plants here. Now, this takes years to get a thought process in place that gives industry comfort that this is a place to invest.

Then, when the Crow rate changed, the thinking towards diversifying, towards value-added industry, was already reasonably mature, and once the announcement was made, we have seen a wide variety of activities announced. I mentioned them earlier with anything from pasta plants to oilseed crushing plants to hog slaughtering plants to expansion of french fries production to Simplot expansion to fibreboard, and on it went.

This is a climax to an event that has gone along quite quietly, and that is that the rail, for a variety of reasons, is losing product volume to trucks. As I said earlier, it has been going on for the last two, three, four years, and you see it is just everywhere, whether it is oilseeds going from an elevator to a crushing plant, whether it is feed grains going from a farmyard or from an elevator to a feed-deficient area in the province, and an example I can give the member is there is a significant cattle-feeding industry in southeast Manitoba, mainly hogs, but dairy and poultry, too, and feed grains are brought in from as far away as Yorkton and Moosomin by truck.

All these processing plants that are being proposed, I can almost guarantee the member, the majority of product will move to them by truck, so even though the rail is there and the elevators are there, they are going to be used in different fashions in the future. There is clearly a growing trucking industry throughout rural Manitoba. I could not give the member a precise number, but I bet you if you took every community over 1,000 people, you would find a trucking company that either has started the last few years, or there is somebody thinking about starting in a trucking business. Lots of farmers run trucks in the wintertime, run one or two or three trucks as a sideline. There is a very profitable sideline at this point in time. The volumes are there.

It is moving a lot of different agricultural commodities, but it is an evolution that started on principles of if the trucking industry could compete in price with the rail industry and be more time effective in terms of when the product was picked up and delivered--because most plants receive work on a just-in-time basis. They want the product coming in the front door as they need it as opposed to having to have storage facilities, and the railway is losing out in this regard.

That is happening, plus with the Crow rate change now, you will see farmers who used to pay $10 to $12 a tonne for freight are now paying, it varies, anywhere from the lowest I have seen is $22 up to $45, so that is a doubling or a tripling of their freight cost. So they say, hey, hold it here, I am paying the whole bill and it is expensive. Maybe I should grow something else, or I am more interested now in selling it to a local processor or a feed mill. There is a dramatic evolution, so nobody can put a figure on this cost. It is just a growing cost. There is more traffic, more trucks. There is more wear and tear.

Just another comment I can make, the principle of B-trains, these 138,000-pound trucks that have eight axles, very efficient units, big power plant up front, roll along our highways. The concept of them was, well, they will be a great unit for fish at long-haul travel from, say, Winnipeg to Regina or Winnipeg to Vancouver, that sort of thing, and you see them on our major highways, but the reality today is they want to go to every location in the province and drop off at every location. Not only are they used by long-haul truckers, they are used by all the short-haul truckers, too. They have gone from semis to the B-trains,, and it is the most time-efficient, cost-efficient way, and so that is weights on our roads that were designed to--I think many of them were built in the days when our weight limits were 72,000 pounds on those roads.

These trucks are 138,000 pounds. A lot of our roads, particularly our PRs were built like the municipal roads. You only had so much clay, and you would have black dirt in the bottom, and that carried the lighter loads. With today's loads, that black dirt is pushing up the middle. The roads cannot carry those weights, yet that is what the industry wants to run.

So there is an evolution that cannot be stopped. We have to respond as best we can, and I meet with municipalities that come in and say we have economic development plans, we have all this going on, and I remember one particular one. They had four different projects they were going to develop. One was a feed mill, one was a seed-cleaning plant and a couple of other initiatives that would require a lot of trucks moving to and from those locations. I said, please, approve those in locations on existing roads that can handle the trucks. They really wanted to approve them three and four and six miles away, and they wanted us to build a road there. Just put a road in for us. So it is your property, your responsibility, your right-of-way, and if you cannot afford it, heaven help us. At the cost-per-kilometre to build the kind of road they needed, it is just unaffordable. We have enough challenges dealing with just the main network.

So that is the evolution that is going on. That figure, I remember talking with the deputy a couple of years ago, and I was saying, what is the total figure in front of us for highway requests? We sort of came to $600,000, somewhere in that category. I think I mentioned the other day, yesterday, a billion dollars, and you know, we talked a couple of days ago, they said they wanted $1.1 billion. I mean, they were doing $100 million a year. For 100 we do, 200 comes onto the table. And it is all associated with this change in the way commercial activity is happening and the increased volume of it throughout our province, and the same applies in the North in terms of the mining haul that is going on.

It creates jobs. It is economic activity. It is good from all the standards of development, but from the standpoint of meeting infrastructure needs, the challenge is immense, and there is no happy, quick solution to it other than an ongoing process of being as efficient as possible in how we do things. I mean, I ask consistently, is there a more cost-effective way to design that road or that bridge to meet the need? Generally, you cannot save a lot of money, but you sure try to.

Mr. Jennissen: I thank the minister for that answer. The next question is maybe asking the minister to comment on a rather motherhood statement, which is the status report on Gateway North, the bayline, Akjuit, the Port of Churchill and so on, and the reason I am asking it is partially because I will be meeting with Doug Webber today and people involved with Gateway North. I guess basically I do not need to get into all of that because I know we could talk for hours on it, but is there any reason to be more optimistic today than, say, a year ago?

* (1100)

Mr. Findlay: The short answer is definitely yes. Churchill's future, the bayline was all--we always argued in the past about grain volumes as being the be-all and the end-all. Clearly, we called on the Wheat Board to move more grain through there, and they constantly came back saying, well, the buyer does not necessarily want to buy it there and so on and so forth.

What we see involved is, you know, Akjuit, in terms of potential up there, in terms of development, it is an ongoing development which will hopefully materialize in raising the capital necessary. The tourism industry in terms of Keewatin supply, all the things that can happen there, plus two-way trade, not only grain and other things going out of that port, but other products coming in. Those things are all more real today than they were a year ago, in terms of probabilities. The task force the member is fully aware of and out of that came the principle of Gateway North. That committee is forming. Terry Duguid is the president of Gateway North and we have appointed a person to it. It is an active ongoing committee.

In addition, Gateway North transportation systems, I think the president is Gord Peters out of Brandon. A number of other private sector people are at this stage developing a prospectus to do with it and ultimately get into a public share offering to raise the capital to purchase the line and some associated branch lines from CN, the port and then deal with the capital rebuild-upgrade that might be appropriate or necessary.

So that is a very active, highly probable initiative, driven by people who see an economic incentive to do it, and it is a much broader incentive than moving grain. It is two-way movement of bulk freight and all of the other associated activities. I mean, Akjuit, if it gets up and going, it needs a rail line to move the rockets in there.

I think the short answer is absolutely yes. I have never felt better about the probabilities of Churchill.

Another factor I could throw in, the elimination of WGTA makes, you know--people really have to start paying not only the freight costs to Thunder Bay, but the pooling costs that used to be paid by all westerners, now only paid by the shipper, puts the seaway at significant cost disadvantage relative to the west coast and now makes the probability of Churchill even more attractive to reach certain markets.

There is certainly talk about, you know, broadening the time period for the use of the port beyond the existing three to four months. So, I mean, it is just promising in many respects, but it hinges very, very much on this Gateway North Transportation Inc. being successful in developing their prospectus and raising the capital. But it is really yes at this point in time.

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, and it basically mirrors the feeling I have as well. I have talked with Mr. Duguid and I will be talking with Mr. Webber and so on, and in the North it makes us all feel good to know that there is still some hope and some promise for the line and for the port itself.

I would like to ask the minister, however, further to that whether there is anything more developing on the original Arctic Bridge agreement?

Mr. Findlay: The Arctic Bridge principle was born in the early 1990s when the Premier (Mr. Filmon) went to Russia and then the year after I went as the Minister of Agriculture and Eric Stefanson as the Minister of Trade and Tourism. An initial agreement was signed on the concept that two northern ports, there might be commercial movement, two-way movement that would be beneficial to both.

Since then, we have concentrated on this side on the Gateway North development and a previous discussion about private sector entrepreneurs. Along the way, also, Moscow Narodny Bank opened a North American office here in Winnipeg and are prepared, have been, you know, looking at a pilot plan to move some 80,000 tonnes of unprocessed nickel ore through the Port of Churchill from Russia, through the port of Murmansk, which is, you know, the Arctic Bridge concept, in exchange for some kind of barter process involving American wheat that would come up through Manitoba through that northern port.

It is exceptionally unique, and more power to them if they succeed in moving ore from Murmansk through Churchill into Manitoba. Obviously, somebody is has to process it. If it is nickel ore, we all know where that should happen--and the idea of moving American grain through Churchill into the Murmansk port. That is active activity on the Arctic Bridge concept, so there are a lot of different initiatives that started at different points in time and all coming together and being picked up by entrepreneurs who see it is a chance to make it happen.

All that activity is positive for the bayline for Churchill and for the future economic activity of the North. It is a concept that we say, go to it, good luck, in the process of trying to put together because, if it works, it is great. But a lot of changing dynamics and transportation costs are happening to make that a probable positive outcome. So, I mean, I would not say that the Arctic Bridge concept made it happen, but it was an initial process and discussion that had led to raising the reality that Murmansk and Churchill have some things in common.

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, and adding to that, the people in Thompson and, I guess, the people in the North are hoping that if Voisey Bay ever pans out, the nickel will be back hauled to Thompson. It may be doubtful at this stage, but still there is a hope there.

I would like to now move on to a letter that the minister already has. It is from Al Cerilli, dated February 19, and he has a number of questions. Basically, three of them I would like to deal with. If the minister does not mind, I would read all three right now, and he could respond to them.

* (1110)

Al's first questions are regarding--this is WINNPORT. What is the difference between the original concept of WINNPORT free trade zone and the WINNPORT foreign trade zone? The second question is, which level of government will employees in the free trade or foreign trade zone be employed under insofar as employment standards, labour law, environment law, health and safety law, and so on, are concerned? Thirdly, what new upgrading of highway and streets will WINNPORT require? I guess he is basically asking, what provincial money, effort or input goes into this?

Mr. Findlay: The member raises three questions. Clearly, at the outset, I would say, the concept of WINNPORT, as I said the other day, has tremendous potential benefits to the whole province. I see the member for Interlake here now. He was present at a meeting that we had in the Interlake on economic development of the Interlake. Clearly the people up there saw WINNPORT as a positive for activities that would be associated with the Interlake. The specific question about free trade zone, foreign trade zone, they are essentially the same thing. With regard to labour laws associated with it, it is in the province. The labour laws would be the same as far as we would understand, theirs as for the province. It is a more specific question you might want to raise with the ministry of Labour. With regard to network upgrade, between Rosser and the city of Winnipeg, there are some 6,000 acres in that total region that is developable, I guess, and is part of the development plan of both the City of Winnipeg and the R.M. of Rosser that could be, over the course of time, utilized by the WINNPORT initiative.

Under the Winnipeg Development Agreement, $5 million of federal-provincial money--in this particular case, it is all provincial money--is allocated. A portion of it has been spent to hire a consultant to develop a plan for development of the region involving the infrastructure and most particularly the roads, and that identified how it might be developed, but we are still very much in a conceptual stage. The business plan that WINNPORT is developing has still not been completed, but they have hired one new person. I saw the announcement in the Globe and Mail yesterday, Lynn Bishop, who was the airport manager is now with WINNPORT in a senior position moving that project along, so there are a lot of things happening.

I am not aware of any bottleneck at this stage. I have seen the presentation from IDG Stanley and conceptually what they laid out makes a lot of sense, but a lot of things have to happen to bring it all together yet. It is moving along relatively well at this point, and I have never heard anybody yet speak in a negative sense about this kind of a project happening in Winnipeg and Manitoba. It is all positive, and it has spinoffs of incredible dimensions, pretty near every sector involved in the private sector right now.

Mr. Jennissen: I would be very interested if the minister could supply me with the written answer to Mr. Cerilli's number of questions, because there are quite a number of them. Also, I would like to put the last two questions I have on the record and maybe we would get a written response from them, which will leave a number of my colleagues a chance to ask questions for the next 15 or 20 minutes or so.

The additional questions that we probably will not have time to discuss are: what is the province's input regarding TransPlan 2010, that is, the urban transit plan for Winnipeg? It is apparently a three-phase plan. My last question is, very theoretically, I am not sure even if it is in the realm of reality yet. There is talk about a super highway from Manitoba to Minnesota, which would be a toll road, supposedly. Is there anything to this idea? If there is, what environmental fossil fuel conservation and safety concerns would such a highway raise?

Mr. Findlay: Of TransPlan 2010, we will put a written response in, but on the highway from Manitoba to Duluth, I think it was, it is somebody's concept to drop totally out of the blue, no developments done. I have not seen anything even in writing to talk about specifics. If somebody has a concept, I do not know if they have the money to support their concept, but it is just somebody's comment. There is nothing happening that I am aware of. Minnesota has rejected it, we never endorsed it, so it was just a concept that at this stage is not going anywhere.

Mr. Jennissen: The reason I raised it is because some rather irate conservationists were already questioning this road, so I told them that I would definitely raise it.

Mr. Findlay: From what I saw it had a whole series of significant problems. The idea that you would run trucks that weighed 20 or 30 percent more than the existing trucks on our roads, how would they get out to this toll road? You have to get onto it from someplace. You have to get off it someplace. The logistics of it were just--the concept, I cannot imagine how it worked. Minnesota rejected it. That is the end of the road, I guess.

Mr. Jennissen: I would like to now pass the questioning on to at least three other honourable members, two of them here and one over there.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the members as they--

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I just have a couple of questions for the minister following along with questions that I asked yesterday. The minister may be aware, I am not sure, about a program in B.C. called--it is called a scrap-it program. Scrap-it, it is designed to get older cars off the road, and they announced this program on April 18, so that was only a month ago. The province announced a program designed to offer rebates to owners of pre-1983 vehicles so that the vehicles were removed from the road and scrapped. The owners whose vehicles qualified would receive up to $750 toward the purchase of a newer, less polluting vehicle or a B.C. transit pass for one year.

In the program's first year they are going to have up to 1,100 vehicles to be removed from the road, and they are expecting that this will operate for a five-year period. So I would ask the minister whether he has any information about this program or whether he would endeavour to have the program checked out for possible application here in Manitoba.

Mr. Findlay: The member comes up with some unique questions, some unique angles, but I will say it is an interesting program. As the member has mentioned they just started it. We will see how it works out, what happens, what is the response. Clearly the idea is to get old cars off the road, but we will analyze it, watch it. I am sure every other jurisdiction will, and over the course of time it is always possible that more jurisdictions would see. We should complement each other and try and get older vehicles off the road. Obviously, B.C., particularly the Vancouver area in terms of traffic congestion, must deem that they have a problem. So I wish them well; I hope it is successful and we will observe it very carefully.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Chairman, I guess what I am really concerned about here on the whole line of questioning is just a concern over lost opportunities, because of the entire history of the electric vehicle program now. It is well into its second year; it started in the spring of 1994. GM had testing sites, which I have indicated here, in the United States. They have set a test site in Vancouver. They are basically into partnership with the B.C. government on this and so what the B.C. government, by being a little forward thinking on this part--I do not know who approached whom, but at the end of the day, B.C. Hydro has an agreement with GM to set up some infrastructure to service these vehicles, and the government has been proactive in this area.

Given that Ford has a test site in Thompson and given that people in Thompson are very interested in expanding that program, as the minister knows, to entice not only Ford but GM and other companies here, I just see this as a great opportunity to not only combat the high price of gas and pollution and so on, but I see an economic opportunity here.

* (1120)

I am not just bringing it up with this minister, because I know he has a limited area within this area, but certainly if he gets proactive and takes some initiative to either reduce or eliminate registration fees associated with EVs, then in my view he has done his part to get the ball rolling. If the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister) gets involved and agrees to purchase--because they are approaching Fleet Vehicles first--a number of these vehicles, then I would say he would be doing his part to lay down some groundwork here and get a leg up on some of the other provinces before they get into it. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) can get involved and do what has been done in California and that is bring in a tax rebate of $5,000 a vehicle. The Industry, Trade and Tourism minister (Mr. Downey) can do his part by trying to make some money available and entice these car companies to do their testing and research because, after all, we have a testing centre here in Thompson right now. I mean this is a good opportunity to try to encourage these companies to get involved.

We have lost out on GM. They have told me they have made their commitment to B.C., and, you know, if we had been there first, maybe they would have come here, but B.C. jumped in line. Well, before Saskatchewan gets in on it and Alberta and other provinces, all I am suggesting is that the minister go after his colleagues and get them working on this, and on our part, we are endeavouring to help out in this regard.

Mr. Findlay: Certainly, I will try to respond as quickly as I can to conserve some time, but the idea of electric cars, it has an appeal in a city location where you are not travelling very far, but in terms of the long-distance travel that many Manitobans do, at this stage I am not aware that they are as viable as the member leads us to believe and they are expensive too.

The other thing is as government, you know, we cannot run government by continuously telling people you do not have to pay taxes for certain reasons. There has to be a full business case. I can promise the member that not only myself but all the other ministers he has mentioned, we constantly look for ways and means to promote the economy of the province however we can attract people to invest.

The Thompson site that Ford is using is a cold testing site. My understanding is there is lots of potential to expand the development of that particular site at the current proposed use.

So we will pursue it as aggressively as we can, but there has to be a significant business case for us to invest money in terms of giving rebates or less taxes because we have to fund our system somehow, in the broad sense.

I hope that something works there because there is new technology coming all the time. You know, it is electric cars or some other concept of replacing the vehicles that use fossil fuel that will be a reality in the course of time, and we want to see as much of that happen in Manitoba as possible.

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Chairman, I just have a few questions for the minister, of course realizing the time.

Can the minister just indicate to me where the Main Street project for Riverton--has council completed the necessary work that they were supposed to do to go ahead with the Main Street project? The minister had indicated to them, I think, two years ago that there were certain things that had to be done. Has the minister had any correspondence of any kind from them recently?

Mr. Findlay: Staff are not currently aware of anything recently happening. We will respond to the member more fully, if he does not mind. Maybe if he just puts some questions on the record, we can respond in written or at some verbal point in the future after we get some information, but nothing new at this point.

Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chairman, yes, I certainly will, and I will speak to the mayor and council this weekend, I hope, and get back to you. I was sort of hoping--I saw the mayor last weekend but he did not mention anything so I thought perhaps you had already received something, because I believe they are just about ready to go ahead and I think they have done their work.

Can the minister tell me whether the last few kilometres to the Hecla resort are in the stages of being completed as far as AST or pavement to the resort from the village?

Mr. Findlay: I think the member is referring to about a four-kilometre stretch within the park itself. Natural Resources, ourselves and other departments are looking at what we can do, so it is under very active consideration to be able to put a surface on there to improve the quality and, I guess, a tourism aspect of that region. It is under some fairly active consideration.

Mr. Clif Evans: Active consideration--I believe that this has been raised by myself and the then Minister of Natural Resources. It is about four kilometres. I was told over the weekend that the resort--the people around there were told that it was going to be done this year, so I would perhaps actively, if the minister wants to use actively, perhaps he should actively find out why people are anticipating this road being finished this summer.

Mr. Findlay: Well, I can tell the member that active consideration is very high, and I hope that something can happen, that what he has heard is a reality. Nothing has been announced yet, but it has never been higher on anybody's agenda than it is on the government's agenda right now.

Mr. Clif Evans: For the last, I think, six sets of Estimates, I have brought up the roads to the different ministers in my constituency, and their conditions. [interjection] Yes, I have been after this government for six years to have something done to some very important roadways in my constituency. In discussions with the minister and the previous minister, I understand situations. What bothers me is that with a lot of roads that municipalities and people have been coming to me about and to the minister directly with resolutions, letters, for this period of time, nothing really has been done.

We always hear survey and design, survey and design. I want to ask the minister, how long does it take for a survey and design, when in 1990-91 I had asked about, say, 329, and the response is, from the previous minister and this minister, survey and design. People are asking me--and this is a question that was asked to me. I am surprised they did not ask you or your staff in Teulon. How long does it take for survey and design for a specific road? How fast does it move along, and what makes it move along to the next step?

Mr. Findlay: What stretch of 329 is the member referring to?

Mr. Clif Evans: Using that as an example, but I have raised 329, of course. I am asking specifically about the survey and design. People, you know, when I respond to them that I have asked the minister questions or I have written or whatever, survey and design is the favourite comment, survey and design. I am only asking so I can respond to my constituents, too, and to the elected officials. How long does it take and what is involved in survey and design?

Mr. Findlay: We have to go through a lot of stages from the concept that a road needs to be done, or there is strong demand, there are commercial needs, there are travelling public needs, there are road volumes, there are municipal resolutions. From that point you look at a road.

Yes, you have to survey and design. You have to acquire property, usually, in most cases. You have to move utilities. You have to get an environmental licence in many cases. There are a lot of steps to go through before you do a tendering, and the tendering might start with grade and gravel, then any sort of surface work that might follow.

* (1130)

It is a long process. There are many projects in the survey and design part of the funnel, if the funnel is going this way. I mean, as you move along you look at a lot of parameters. It is not this precise science that you do this, that, the other thing, and it just moves right along. If there was enough money, yes it could, but I think I mentioned earlier in your absence that we have over a billion dollars of requests sitting on a table and a hundred million to serve that billion-dollar need, and for every hundred million we spend, a year later there is now 200 more that showed up, so we are losing ground all the time.

I do not want to go back into it again, but there are dramatic changes happening in rural Manitoba. When we met in the Interlake, the economic development committee for the Interlake, Garry Wasylowski maybe was the fellow who got up and he laid out all the roads that were wanted. I had a staffperson there, and I said to him, is $300 million sort of in the ballpark of what he has just requested? He said, yes, it was.

Well, you know, with 12 percent of the travelling public, 12 percent of the roads, sort of thing, and you get 12 percent of the budget, that is $12 billion a year. Think how long it takes to meet that $300-million need. That is the dilemma we face. The demand, the need, the expectation is so far beyond the financial capabilities, so you have to ratchet down what you can do. We will respond as best we can in the very broadest sense, and it is not going to satisfy very many people, because we cannot do enough fast enough.

Nobody really understands the cost of bridges and the cost of building roads in today's dollars. When I talk to the construction industry, they tell us we are getting the best deal ever. Still there is a scarcity of dollars. As people argue for more and more money in health and education and the social services, it limits the capability to do the capital projects in Highways.

So there is no magic that because you have done survey and design you will automatically find the money to get on with it. There is a long rationalization process to what you can do. The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) wants to spend 25 percent in the North. That might mean north of the Interlake. So you guys, get your acts together. I appreciate the member's concerns. When he is talking 329, the road count volume over towards Highway 17 is like 130 vehicles a day. That is very low. And that is taking into consideration when the member for Flin Flon asked about Highway 59, it has got 4,500 to 5,000 vehicles a day. It has got totally different considerations.

So I have not got an answer that the member wants, but it is just a reality that we face. It is not easy to decide to do everything in any sort of reasonable time frame.

Mr. Clif Evans: What I would appreciate then from the minister and his department is, I would appreciate the roads that I have raised in the last six years, I mean, I can go back in Hansard to Estimates and bring back to you what you have said and what the previous minister has said. What I would appreciate from the department and I hope this is not out of--but I would appreciate a total rundown of my constituency.

I appreciate the whole provincial aspect of the Highways department. I would like a total on every specific road in my constituency and what and where the department is at with it. The reasons, whether it be road counts, whether it be what stage they have been in, how long they have been in that stage, what is holding it up besides money, I would appreciate that, because it would give me a better idea to be able to discuss it with my communities so that I know where the Highways department is with the roads.

Now the other side of it, I will take 329 for an example. That road is paved to 326 and up and it needs and awful lot of work. Now, I have asked since 1990, specifically, let us say 329. I have said to the then minister, I have said to this minister, if proper maintenance upgrading at the areas that are needed would be done, there may not be as much of an outburst of people coming after myself and the minister's department to pave them as such.

This is what I would like from the minister's department this time around. Instead of specifically arguing about the specific roads, I would appreciate very much that I get that breakdown. If the minister would want from me the specific road numbers, I can do that, but the department staff knows the roads that are in the Interlake constituency, I am sure, and where every road is at.

Mr. Findlay: We will respond, but I would ask the member to just give us the list of the highways that you want us to respond on. That makes it easier, so we narrow down what we are doing. But never forget that all your constituents travel Highways 8, 7, 17, 6. They are interested in roads not only within the constituency but the north-south connecting roads. That is part of the package that services your constituency too, not just within the constituency, so expenditures on those roads facilitate your constituents too.

Mr. Clif Evans: If the minister will remember, in Teulon the economic development organization that put the meeting together there did say that the east-west connection was also becoming more or as important between the communities as the north-south. I would hope that after all the years of political badgering that I have done as far as from myself to get these things done and being a resident of the Interlake community since 1987, I cannot do anything but agree with my constituents and the people in the area to say that nothing has been done for those east-west connections and that something, whatever political stripe is in government, should be looking at that and in other parts of the province too.

Mr. Findlay: There is work being done on some of the east-west connections, but I appreciate that there is greater need because there is more movement of product east and west, particularly livestock, and we are addressing this as fast as we can, but we will give you specifics. We have had municipality input and, yes, I mentioned north-south roads because they have been built. We continually do reconstruction jobs on them but I know east-west is more important to you now. You used to work on the north-south, now you want east-west. Southern Manitoba, we used to work on east-west, now they want north and south, so you see we are filling in the patchwork process here to have connections in all directions. We will respond.

Mr. Clif Evans: Last year, I forget exactly when it was, I believe the fall of 1995, in my community, a truck, a van--

An Honourable Member: In Riverton?

Mr. Clif Evans: --in Riverton, stopped to gas up. The van was from Illinois and it had all kinds of high-tech equipment in it, manned by three people. When asked what they were doing with Illinois plates, whether they were visitors or tourists, they indicated to some of the folks in my community that they were doing work on behalf of the Department of Highways for Manitoba. I believe the initials on the truck were IMS, and did some checking and the people said that they were there to test the roads and the conditions of the roads and that this was the second time around for them being in the province. Does the minister--can he enlighten us more on this?

* (1140)

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. A formal vote has been requested in the Chamber. This section of the committee will now proceed to the Chamber for the formal vote.