* (1700)
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m. and time for Private Members' Business.
Madam Speaker: Bill 201 (The Crime Victims' Bill of Rights and Consequential Amendments Act), Bill 203 (The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act (2)).
General Hospital Foundation
Motion presented.
Mr. Struthers: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill to this House today and make but a few comments on the importance of passing this legislation here in the Legislature. The town of Dauphin has a long tradition of providing quality health care to the citizens of our community, and not just the town of Dauphin but the whole community, including the Parkland. The Dauphin Hospital is a regional centre serving a wide area.
One of the strengths of having the hospital foundation is that it is able to bring in ideas and solutions to challenges and input from a wide range of people. I want to take some time to congratulate those who have served on the Dauphin General Hospital Foundation in past years and also commend those who are serving today in that capacity. I want to take a minute or two to congratulate the people who will be affected by the amendments that are being put forward in this private member's bill. They were the volunteers and the staff and nurses and doctors, administrators, all the staff at the hospital who will benefit, I hope, through our actions here in the House today.
This bill allows for representation. One rep each from the town of Dauphin, the Rural Municipality of Dauphin, the Dauphin General Hospital Health Care Auxiliary, the medical staff and the Parkland Regional Health Authority. It also allows for six members to be elected in an annual general meeting. The bill also establishes one-year terms for appointed members on the board and three-year terms for elected members, two three-year terms for elected members.
The bill also sets out the rules for filing a vacancy in the case of both elected and appointed members. Finally, the bill provides for the dissolution of this corporation with a two-thirds majority vote, so I am very glad to be able to speak on this private member's bill today and look forward to the passage of this bill to assist the Dauphin General Hospital Foundation in its day-to-day operations and for the betterment of health care in the community and district of Dauphin.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), that debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
"WHEREAS the current Provincial Government has made deep cuts to rural economic development initiatives and programs over the past several years; and
"WHEREAS many municipalities have suffered as a result of severe cuts to operating grants, increased policing costs and the offload of responsibility for a wide variety of services and programs; and
"WHEREAS rural infrastructure development has not kept pace with the need; and
"WHEREAS the Canada/Manitoba Infrastructure Program was of benefit in improving municipal infrastructure, there are currently no plans for a second infrastructure program even though traditional infrastructure initiatives such as roads and bridges, as well as water and sewage facilities, need upgrading; and
"WHEREAS municipalities are being called upon to maintain an ever increasing portion of provincial as well as municipal roads; and
"WHEREAS this has placed an additional and increasing financial burden on local governments and municipalities; and
"WHEREAS the Union of Manitoba Municipalities has recognized the decline in Provincial support for road maintenance as a problem, and has passed Convention Resolutions dealing with this issue; and
"WHEREAS efforts must be made to ensure a vital rural economy and thriving communities, which requires adequate infrastructure.
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Provincial Government to consider funding for adequate road maintenance across Manitoba; and
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly request that the Provincial Government stop offloading road maintenance to the municipalities."
Motion presented.
Mr. C. Evans: I rise today to speak on this resolution, I believe a very important resolution as part of the opportunity for us to speak and bring our concerns to this House during our private members' hour.
Madam Speaker, this government in the past nine years has in steps--and when I say in steps, has begun or began some eight or nine years ago to begin to offload responsibility--their responsibility on provincial roads, gravel and others--onto municipalities and onto communities in rural and northern Manitoba. They began with offloading 2,000 kilometres of roads onto municipalities. They began there, making deals with municipalities trying to make it an issue, so that if you took this road, we will do that road. We will maintain that road. Many municipalities then did not know and to this day still do not know how they are able to cope with the needed maintenance on those roads that are offloaded and the others that have been offloaded in the past couple of years.
Madam Speaker, then they went and they talked about--well, I believe it was the former Minister of Highways who decided that he was going to take away the dust program in the province of Manitoba.
An Honourable Member: A dirty deed.
Mr. C. Evans: Another dirty deed, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) has indicated, another dirty, nasty deed by this government, Madam Speaker, by the former Minister of Highways saying that it is going to save somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000, and I will deal with some of those issues as far as dust controls later on, in a few minutes, within my speech.
Then, Madam Speaker, some few years back, out of the blue, behind closed doors, we find that this government and this minister at the direction of the cabinet, I am sure, decided that he was going to offload maintenance on more municipal roads within municipalities.
While he decided that he was going to do this--I do not know how he came about to doing it, because I remember the issues at that time, and we raised it with this minister--well, we were making deals. There are comments in some of the--we were going to make a deal so that it would be easier for the municipalities to take care of their roads. Those are some of the words that the minister used himself: we will make it easier.
* (1710)
An Honourable Member: Stick to the truth.
Mr. C. Evans: Well, the minister knows I always stick to the truth. Then, in House here one time, he tells us: well, I had the opportunity. I gave them the opportunity. I told them that we were going to be doing this, and that we were considering it and we were going to give you the opportunity, so I will make a deal taking over, offloading more roads, the maintenance of more roads in their municipalities.
However, the minister failed in many cases, failed. He should remember this and he does remember this. He should remember that in many cases some of the municipalities he talked to during UMM convention were not made aware that this was the proposal that this government wanted to do.
Question Period, I stated the facts. Some of the municipalities that I talked to and who wrote to me stated: we were unaware; we were not informed; we were not told. The minister will also remember a meeting that the municipalities in the Interlake region had in Teulon, where one of the reeves got up and lambasted this minister for their decision to go ahead and offload and provide more roads for the municipalities to take care of. The minister will remember that.
Madam Speaker, as the resolution states, infrastructure is very important for economic development and for our rural communities--very important--as I have stated before and members on this side of the House have stated before. Now the further point, when you talk about the offloading of maintenance, is that we question this minister about what he has done and what his government has done with respect to the abandoning of rail lines. I brought this issue up with concerns about Highway 6. There is another need. Now we see not only in papers, and I believe I read today or yesterday in the paper--today, I believe--about the increased truck traffic that we are going to have in this province of Manitoba for interjurisdictional trade. Back and forth. A good example in my area, in my constituency, and I have mentioned this, is the Continental Lime.
When the issue was raised with the minister before, and I talked about it, he said: well, how many trucks are they using now for their import and export of coal and product--50 percent? Well, now, of course, and I said into the record what the Continental Lime spokesman said about how that was a lifeline for their company, and now the general manager from Calgary told me himself that it is going to increase. Of course, it is obvious. It is going to have to increase their use of trucks to a complete 100 percent. Not little trucks. Not little four cylinders. Not little four wheelers, but big trucks. Massive trucks with a tremendous amount of load carrying from the plant down Highway 6 down to 68 and across through The Narrows and down as far south as the Perimeter and then onward.
So it is very important. Now we can appreciate that conditions at times do not provide the best availability to do certain maintenance on ceratin roads, but we on this side of the House and this member, if the minister wants to look through Hansard, for eight years, nine years, have always, always asked that, when I talked about roads, not only in my constituency but in other areas that I have travelled, I have always said: we cannot expect pavement paved with gold from one point to the other; we cannot expect that. We appreciate; we understand. Our members here understand that, but maintain them, upgrade them, do the best you can. But what has been happening? Down with the budget every year. Down a little bit more. Down a little bit more. Jobs being lost; the minister at the time wanting to offload; the latest offload of municipal roads or PR roads through the municipalities.
Madam Speaker, we find out that he also wants to shut down highway yards in different areas, more jobs. What about the maintenance that these Highways employees were doing? They would not be there.
Now, I have received and I know that other members on this side have received many calls and many letters with respect to the maintenance of the roads. I will put on record today that in my constituency some of the folks who have come to me about paving a specific road, I have said to them, I have said about the cost, but I have said do you not agree with me more that if the road was upgraded properly, if the road was taken care of, if the maintenance was there, that, for now, would be a part that would be all right for the traffic. Now, I understand that traffic is traffic. The minister, the government and perhaps we would say this too, well, if there were tons of traffic on this road, yes, we would certainly consider doing that. I am using the word "tons," but, of course, it is vehicles that cross that line.
We have asked, I have asked this minister to provide counters on certain roads because of the traffic, because of the extra truck traffic. Another area in my constituency that is seeing an awful lot of truck traffic is from a little community and a business called Vidir Machine. The business has multiplied over the past five years. They haul their product from Vidir to B.C. to Florida to California. The road system around that area--and there are other businesses there--need an upgrading of the road. Maybe we do not know about paving it or AST, but good maintenance on that road because it is heavily, heavily travelled.
It is rural economy, rural infrastructure, a need. Is this minister listening? I do not know. I am hoping he listens. I mean he is listening; whether he is going to react to it or not, I do not know. I hope they are listening over there because I am sure some of the rural members on that side will agree with me on this. The member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed)--I spent a few years in his constituency--the same situation. Maybe a little bit more pavement in that area than perhaps in the Interlake, a little bit more, but we can understand--[interjection] Yes, at that time. The only fact of the matter is sometimes we are not sure where that pavement goes.
Madam Speaker, I want to use my resolution as an encouragement to this minister and to this government and tell him that we will support initiatives that he will implement into maintaining the rural roads. The key in the resolution, I believe, is the infrastructure. It is so important. The key to this is maintaining our gravel PR roads to the main market roads, because the traffic is increasing, perhaps not in population, but in tourism.
In products, you have your Continental Limes, you have your agricultural traffic. Since the rail lines abandoned their lines to certain communities, they have to travel from one area to the other hauling their grain. What has that brought on? The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) will agree with me. I know he agrees with me. It is wonderful to see King Harry agree with me. I am always supportive when the Minister of Agriculture supports what I am saying.
An Honourable Member: Happy birthday. Like that sign in Riverton, happy birthday, Cliffy, baby.
An Honourable Member: How many is it?
Mr. C. Evans: Thank you very much. Fifty.
I want to bring up two more issues. I can say that I am feeling it, because when I travel in the province of Manitoba, my back hurts me more when I have to travel over all those rocks and everything.
The municipalities have put in resolutions against the offloading. Only 31 of 115 municipalities are in the program. Most of those now are saying--they have signed three-year contracts--that it is a bad deal. They cannot handle it financially and resourcefully. The fear is that they may not be able to get the best job done for the buck.
* (1720)
Madam Speaker, I want to get back to one of the offloading--or I believe offloading, even though it was a cut--the dust control program. I know that in the past few years once people realized and understood that this program had been cut, it has become a tremendous hardship and a burden for a lot of communities and a lot of people on these provincial roads.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
I want to just, into the record here, say that we all received this letter, all 57 members, inviting us for a barbecue on Highway 325. The minister received it. I do not know if he has responded. I know I am going. I go by there a lot of times, a constituent of mine, and visit with him the odd time. I do not know if the minister has responded. I know and I appreciate one thing, and I will say on record. I appreciate the fact that the minister is responding to a Mrs. Painchaud [phonetic] on 233, but I would like to see some response to this too.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the letter states, and this is the point that I want to make that the roads, the offloading and the maintenance has also created a hardship. The wording of this invitation is given in the hope that somewhere, someone will undertake to bring the subject matter before the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and that the Legislative Assembly will start to be concerned about preventative medical care. Using medical care, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has become a tremendous issue because of the offloading and the cutback of the road dust control program that this province has undertaken to cut.
I just want to indicate that I have travelled not only roads in my constituency but other roads. I have for the minister, to pass on to him as an example, of part--this is gravel that was put on one of the roads by this offloading by this government. This government should respond to the needs of the people in the communities, upgrade the roads, keep the roads maintained properly. Thank you.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am going to spend a little time talking about rural infrastructure. I think the member would like me to talk about that. I am going to correct a number of the misinformation that he put on the record both today and one other day last week that he spoke on a grievance in this House and talk about a little bit of reality and really the truth that is going on.
I do not think the member will dispute that there is dramatic change happening in rural Manitoba in terms of transportation. I do not think anybody could deny that point. We have had infrastructure challenges as long as we have been around in this province, no matter who was in government. There is always the man beyond ability to respond.
When we came into government in 1988, clearly the government of the day had not done a lot to get the roads up to shape. They had run up great big deficits, required us to get the fiscal house in order. Yes, some decisions were made along the way that we had to reduce some of the things we were doing in order to get our fiscal house in order, but I want to tell the member that happened in every province in this country because it was time to live within our means.
Certainly roads are important to keep the rural economy strong. We all know that railroads have been a big and integral part of transportation in western Canada, but I think the member would also remember that back in the '60s and the '70s, a significant number of rail lines were abandoned by CN and CP. That put certain amounts of grain onto roads because it had a little further distance to travel to the next elevator. Then along came the federal government again looking at changing the transportation act in 1994 where they streamlined the process for railroads to abandon rail lines. There is no question railroads have gone on with that game and more and more lines are being abandoned. Again, that means more grain traffic, particularly any traffic going to a rail line has to travel further on a road.
If the member will just look at the map, he will see that there have been a lot of large elevators built across rural Manitoba in recent years on the main lines. So there is no question that the grain companies and the railroads see the future of movement of bulk products by rail involving a lot more road use to get to the rail.
Now, there has been an evolution of the trucking industry across rural Manitoba. Instead of one or two small trucks to a company, you will see many companies with 10, 12, 15, 25 trucks, and they are hauling grain for long distances. Some of it they are picking up in farmyards and hauling to an elevator. In many cases, they are picking it up in farmyards and hauling it to a processing plant like in Harrowby or to the hog industry where they--I do not really need that, thank you very much. Well, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) always likes to be smart in the House, and maybe that is what got him here, and it will sure keep him on that side of the House for a long period of time.
The member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans) has raised some issues that I want to respond to but, at the same time, let us set the framework in which we live today.
The members opposite wanted us to work on roads, and when there is a traffic volume of 8,000 or 9,000 vehicles a day, if we do work on the road, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he gets upset because it is not in his constituency. But he is the same member who comes along and asks us to do various things to help his constituents. I would defy him to go out there and find people who do not think we have improved the safety on that road. [interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister has got the big opportunity at this time. You are out of order. The honourable members will have their opportunity, I am sure, to put their--[interjection] The honourable minister, to continue.
Mr. Findlay: While the federal government has stimulated the abandonment of lines, they took away the Western Grain Transportation Act, which meant that the transportation costs by rail increased for many farmers twofold, threefold, fourfold, $10 a ton to over $40 a ton. So in many cases the farmer says, I cannot pay that bill, it is too high, so we are doing other things with that grain product. That is why you have the evolution of the hog industry, that is why there is more processing going on here. At the same time, the elevator companies are moving more and more of the grain that comes in the front door of the elevator by truck, 20 percent, 25 percent, 35 percent.
I mean, there is an evolution of change here driven by economics, and everybody has freedom to make decisions. And, yes, there is an impact on an infrastructure, there is no question about it, whether it is municipal infrastructure, provincial infrastructure, or the national highway system.
I am really disappointed that the member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans) would not recognize where the real issue is. The real issue is that the federal government in this country is the only federal government in the western world that does not contribute to the infrastructure system of its country. We have an east-west system that is failing, and we are forced as a province to put more and more money into the major infrastructure system just to keep it up to speed in terms of what the truck industry and the transportation industry needs. He does not support us in asking the federal government for the taxes they collect on the road system to put something back into the road system or reduce the amount of taxation--
Mr. C. Evans: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to make a comment to the minister that we on this side do support the infrastructure program, and we do support this government or any government in promoting the federal government to put their fair share into infrastructure in the province.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of order. It was clearly a dispute over the facts.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister, to continue.
Mr. Findlay: I appreciate the member's comment. I am glad to hear that there is support, because that is the biggest problem we have got, that they will not contribute to our infrastructure. Meanwhile, we as a province and the municipalities are left with a burden that is very difficult to handle. When these roads were built, whether municipal or provincial, many of them in the '50s, '60s, they were built to carry trucks of 44,000 pounds. Today, B-trains are running 138,000 pounds. What do you expect the road structure to do? It just cannot handle it.
In terms of trying to deal within the realities of which we live, we have many initiatives involving municipalities. Over the years, up to 115 municipalities have some kind of agreement, contract, written, verbal, whatever, with us where they will do grading, snow clearing, street cleaning, various kinds of programs, not programs, but just business relationships with us. It totals 115 municipalities, towns, villages, R.M.s across the province. It is ad hoc in most cases, but it is a relationship where we work together. Building on that, I have had municipalities over the years come and say: we will do more of that because we can do it cheaper than you. That is what I like to hear because that means we have more money left over to put more gravel on the roads to do more maintenance. Bingo, I think that is what the member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans) was asking for.
* (1730)
So a couple of years ago, to carry on that discussion, we had umpteen meetings with the municipalities to work out how that might be done. We worked out an arrangement and agreement that we could both live with. At the end of the day, we contracted with some 31 municipalities to carry on winter and summer maintenance on those roads, because they had the equipment, they had the manpower, they have the know-how, there is no question about that, to maintain those roads. They have done an excellent job of it, excellent job. We have talked to the municipalities, we have talked to the UMM. Everybody is quite happy with the agreements that currently exist.
Now they are asking: when can we renew them? Well, we are in the second year. We will wait and see where we are at the end of the second year going into the third. These are three-year agreements, but the 10 percent that we have saved in the maintenance on those roads we are putting back into those exact same roads in increased gravel for those roads. So you can improve the roads by saving money on maintenance and putting more gravel on those roads. I think that is exactly what the member was asking for. So everybody wins.
Look, I like a member to come here and really talk about the facts and the truth, and I am trying to do that, and it is an agreement that works for everybody. Municipalities have better roads, roads are better running through their systems so there is less travel on their roads, and everybody wins.
The member talks about removing dust control, and I really wish he would read the budget last year and this year where we have a million and a half dollars in the budget for dust control on gravel roads over 250 vehicles a day, $1.5 million in the budget last year and this year. So his statement that we remove dust control is false, is simply not true, but he came, he said it the other day in his grievance, and he said it again today. He is not respecting the facts that are in front of us. I am a little disturbed that the member would take that position. It was not there three years ago, but it was there last year and this year. Please catch up with what is going on. [interjection] Oh, the member does not want us to do it on those roads of high volume where the dust is the worst.
The member talks about Continental Lime, talks about rail line abandonment. I do not know of any province that could afford to take over those rail lines and operate them. We support short-line operations where they are economically viable, and certainly OmniTRAX and northern railroads is a working model, because we worked with CN to be sure that they put an economic unit on the table for the short-line operator to bid on. We try the same process for every rail line that is up for abandonment and try to be sure that it is an economic unit, is packaged and available. If it is not economic, then the government should not be involved, nor should anybody be involved.
At the end of the day, the shipper, whether it is a farmer or a fertilizer operator will choose whether it goes by rail or by truck and, neither good news nor bad news, more and more people are choosing to move product by truck. It has been an evolution for 40 years in rural Manitoba and rural western Canada. I am sure that member, if he is just 50 he will remember that in his hometown 30-40 years ago, pretty well every commodity came into that town by rail, and slowly and steadily trucks have taken more and more of the business.
There is good news there because we have a trucking industry creating 25,000 jobs in this province. It is growing. If you look at the statistics of north-south trade, we have about 700 to 800 trucks crossing at Emerson and Pembina every day. North-south trade is growing. Our exports to the U.S. have tripled in the last five years, good news related to the trucking industry. So the pressure is always on us to maintain that infrastructure, the major infrastructure, secondary infrastructure and tertiary infrastructure.
The member could probably understand why we do respond most rapidly to the roads of highest volume. We cannot allow those roads to fail or the bridges not to be strong enough to carry the weights. For instance, we are rebuilding the decks on the north Perimeter over the Red River. It is $8 million to rebuild those two decks. You can hardly see what we are doing there. When it is over, you will drive over it in two seconds, but it is $8 million of expenditure. It is incredible. We cannot afford to allow that road to fail or the bridge to be closed. It is absolutely impossible.
So instead of spending $8 million on roads in his constituency, it is happening there. That is why it is so critical that we get $20 million, $30 million, $40 million a year from the federal government, from the taxes they are collecting, to help us get to the roads further out. The feds are collecting $140 million, $150 million a year in Manitoba in road-related fuel tax--$150 million--and last year and this year, we are getting zero. That just cannot continue forever because the request lists for roads in Manitoba--when I came into this portfolio almost five years ago, I asked what was the request list--we had approximately a hundred million a year for capital--and it was $600 million.
Today it is $1.5 billion. That is requests because primarily municipalities want roads. We know bridges that have to improve. We know surfaces on the Trans-Canada have to be continually replaced, so the demand is escalating. The demand is escalating because there are more trucks, bigger trucks, heavier trucks, and there is road wear and tear. There is no question about it.
The member also made comments that we have not increased capital, that, in fact, we decreased capital, I think. Again, check the budget. It went up $7.1 million this year. Now, I know it is not going to go far enough, but do not say it is decreasing when it is really increasing, and that is the truth. [interjection]
A $7.1-million increase is a $7.1-million increase, and I am happy that the member is now going to support us in terms of the federal request, that they must put some money into the transportation system. This initiative to try to get federal money has been going on for, unfortunately, 10 years. We got so close in '92, we got close in '95, and I cannot understand with all the support there is across this country from every interest group that I know of that is interested in roads, all saying the same thing to the federal government, that they continue to deny us. I am meeting with all the ministers again tomorrow, and the issue is back on the table. Hopefully, sooner or later we are successful.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister's time has expired.
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): I must say that I agree with much of what has been said here on both sides of the House. I do support the resolution presented by my colleague the member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans). At the same time, I do understand the minister's frustration.
An Honourable Member: He noticed that.
Mr. Struthers: It was quite clear, yes. I do empathize with the fact that the federal government is very reticent to take part in a National Highways Program. We have always recognized that on this side of the House, any infrastructure. I would love for another infrastructure program in this province, and I think it is not right that the federal government will not take part in that.
I also think that it is wrong for the federal government to be taking fuel taxes out of this province and not putting them back into the road system. We have been clear on that. We agree with the minister that the federal government should do its fair share in helping with what is a looming crisis in this province when it comes to our roads.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, one fact that I was interested to read about is that most of the provincial funding is directed to major highways. About 25 percent goes towards the Trans-Canada, the Perimeter and Highways 16 and 75 and 5. It seems to me that those are roads that the federal government at one time put some money into. If I am off base on that, then I am sure somebody will correct me. [interjection] The member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans) just might do that.
* (1740)
At one time the federal government did take that fuel tax and put it back into those highways. There is no doubt that the federal government is part of the problem. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my worry is that, as we abandon rail lines and as the federal government continues not to show leadership in the area of transportation in the province of Manitoba, we continually look to the rural municipalities to pick up more and more and more of the tab. My colleague from the Interlake noted that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 31 of the total of the rural municipalities in this province have opted into the picking up of provincial roads. When you have that small percentage of R.M.s opting into this situation, it tells me that this is simply an offload by this provincial government onto a junior level of government.
It is not right for this government to complain about the federal government offloading onto them and then turn and offload onto the R.M.s. I have had several opportunities to talk with R.M.s in the Parkland area. A couple of them who had opted into this plan opted in because they said that the province was going to dump them on us anyway. They were going to give us these roads, and the last time they gave us these roads, they did not give us enough money to operate them. So we are in a position where we have to either say no or take these provincial roads on and then raise local taxes.
The minister shakes his head, but this is a concern that was expressed to me by the rural municipalities. These are people who know their budgets intimately. As the minister does and as we on this House understand, there is going to be tremendous amount of pressure on our highway system over the next little while. More product moving into the province, out of the province, it is key for economic development that we have a good sound transportation network.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the minister referenced the amount of money that he is being requested to invest in our highways, in our provincial roads, and I can understand that it is a huge amount of money. Just looking at the number of calls that I get in my office just in Dauphin and our area, I can understand that looking at the whole province is going to be a large sum of money. There is no doubt that the minister has, at his finger tips, studies that suggest that he should be putting more money into roads. There is no doubt that there are technical and empirical data that suggest that our roads need to be upgraded.
At the same time, over and over and over again, there is anecdotal data that is available to us that we get in our constituencies all the time. I was challenged by some of my constituents to go and try out PR 328 not so long ago. So I went and I drove my car across 328 from Waterhen over to Gypsumville, over to No. 6, and I tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the road was a mess. It makes no sense to me to leave a road in that kind of condition when you have in the area of Waterhen and Mallard and Meadow Portage and the reserve at Waterhen as well those who are interested in moving forward on economic development ideas that they have. It is essential that they have that connection to No. 6 without having to go all the way down south to Ste. Rose and across through The Narrows to No. 6. It makes good economic sense for that area in my constituency to be connected with a suitable provincial road.
Now, I understand that the minister can look at a long list of projects four feet deep on the top of his desk, maybe, and I understand he does not have a moneytree growing out the back of the Legislature here someplace, but this is a good example of how some investment would really benefit this area tremendously. Another example is Provincial Road 276 from Waterhen north to the Waterhen reserve. Here is a road that has been surveyed, has been partly built up and paved already, but for some reason stopped. It was around 1988--I forget what the event was then that meant that project had to be halted, maybe it was the provincial election, I am not sure--that project came to an end and it has not been continued since then.
I want to draw attention to another specific example, and here is one that I think really typifies the problems that we are going to see in rural Manitoba with highways. It is Provincial Road 274--I hope I get all these numbers right--it is provincial 274, north of Gilbert Plains, and over to No. 10 highway hooking up with the community of Ethelbert. Here is an area where the CNR several years ago used a flood as an excuse to abandon prematurely the Cowan sub leaving farmers in the Ethelbert/Pine River/Fort River area out of luck. They had to now look at alternative ways of getting their grain to market. One of the things that is happening in Gilbert Plains is that there are plans to build a much larger facility, a larger elevator. Now, what you are going to see are all the farmers from that Ethelbert area using Highway 274 down through Gilbert Plains and then west on No. 5 highway.
Again, I was challenged and took up a farmer, a constituent of mine, as he drove me in his grain truck north out of Gilbert Plains along Provincial Road 274. The road is too narrow to begin with for farm implements to be meeting each other. If you got a combine and a truck and you are hauling grain, that road is not acceptable as far as the width is concern. Potholes all over the place, potholes were evident, it was a rough ride all the way, and it is not like I never had the experience of driving a grain truck before. This was an awful road, and it is going to get more beat up as more farmers from that Ethelbert area use it coming down through Gilbert Plains. So there is another big challenge that faces the minister.
My colleague from the Interlake talked about the dust control program. I have an excellent example in my constituency. The road that branches off No. 5 highway into the little community of Makinak, a little community in my constituency. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in Makinak there is a wheat Pool elevator that does a pretty brisk business, serves a very large area in my constituency. Farmers from north of Ste. Rose, farmers from south of Laurier haul their wheat to this elevator. Number one complaint about I believe it is PR480 is that it is too rough and it gets beat up. It is just rough and costs people a lot of money with damages and those sort of things. But the latest complaint that I am getting over and over is the dust control problem. I think what is happening here is partly due to the weather. We got an early spring, we got dry conditions up in the area, and every time a grain truck goes by, anytime any vehicle goes by along the road, all the people living along PR480 get blasted with dust.
I am told that there has been a lot of calcium put down on that particular road and that even if we had a rain, some of the excess calcium that is in the road will serve to keep the gravel together, the dust together, and it will not fly up. That is good to know, except I wish it would hurry up and rain. In the meantime, it might be a good idea if the Department of Highways could find out how much it would cost to send the water truck down there to give it a spray every now and then, just to help these people out. They have enough problems with a rough road to try to work with, let alone having dust problems on top of that.
* (1750)
Another example that I want to bring to the attention of the House is PR No. 68, and I bet I am not the first one to bring this to the attention of the minister. A friend of mine took the bus, Grey Goose or Greyhound, I forget just which one it was. I do not want to make a plug for one or the other, so I will just include them both in that. She took the bus from Winnipeg and swore up and down she would never take that particular route again because of the roughness of the road. This is, I am sure, an example that has been brought to the attention of many regional engineers in the Department of Highways, and it is my hope that at some point this road gets a lot more attention.
The point I want to make here is that it is not just grain, it is not just lumber, it is not just hogs, it is not just the agricultural side of it, but there is a whole other economic side to why we should have a strong network of highways in this province, and getting Grey Goose or Greyhound to easily use No. 68 highway is good for the Interlake. It is good for the area up through The Narrows to Ste. Rose. So it makes sense to me to try to keep up with the amount of work that needs to be done on Highway 68.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just want to conclude by saying that--[interjection] There are so many, I could go on for so long. [interjection] It is a good program. The people of Sifton appreciate the work that is being done on 362. But what I want to encourage the minister is that everybody knows that the highways are going to be under a tremendous amount of pressure over the next several years, and a slight increase in the budget this year I do not think is going to be enough. The Manitoba Chamber of Commerce even has suggested that 20 million extra dollars in spending is going to be maybe not even enough, but it is saying that you have to spend at least $20 million in increase.
The message is very clear to the minister, that somehow he has to be able to, whether it is partnering with the federal government, which I understand is a tough job, but also it is so important that we keep our highways in good shape that the minister is going to have to find the kind of funds that my colleague for Interlake is talking about or we are really going to be missing out on the economic boat, I am afraid, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So thank you for this time to put some comments on the record.
Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): The resolution brought forward today by the member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans) is of great interest to me. I remember several years ago as a municipal councillor, we had the responsibility for maintaining the roads in the municipality, and I can remember sitting around the table with my colleagues on council and discussing some of the concerns we had over maintenance of roads and trying to come up with better ideas of how to maintain them and perhaps have the savings that might come with it.
But one of the things we fought with in our minds and at the table was the fact that several times of the day and throughout a week and over the year, we would be sending maintenance equipment down a provincial road to access the roads that we were maintaining, and several times the maintenance people would advise us that they were meeting the Highways road coming down the road that they were travelling. We thought to ourselves, well, there is going to be a more efficient way to do things. There has to be a better way to do things, and we developed an idea that we would present to the government of the day for a reasonable fee.
I should point out that in our discussions, one of the things that we said was the money that is saved--I mean, we felt we could do it cheaper to start with because we were there and we were going up and down the road, and also it would free up the Highways maintenance crews to do the major roads, and, hopefully, they would improve at the same rate.
We made our presentation to the government of the day, and they discussed it with us, and that is really as far as it went. It became a discussion and they thanked us for bringing forward a new idea, a new proposal that might enhance every side of the equation, the highways in the Province of Manitoba, the local R.M. and the municipalities. We also thought of it perhaps as an economic venture because if we were to assume some responsibility for some of the provincial roads, perhaps we would be able to employ another person. Instead of a seasonal worker, we would have a full-time employee. When you get a good seasonal worker and you can offer him full-time employment, it is certainly an incentive for him to stay within your municipality and provide the services.
Unfortunately, at the time, perhaps it was ahead of schedule or ahead of the idea of what governments were doing and what their plans were, but when the government of the day brought forward this idea again to the municipalities, I thought it was a great idea. I thought here is something that is coming to fruition, something that we had discussed, and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would suggest that it was 20 years ago or so that we started these discussions. I thought the government had taken the right approach. They talked to the municipalities on an individual basis, presented to them the cost of operating the particular roads that we were prepared to turn over to the municipalities should they want it.
I sat in on some of the discussions with the minister and some of my municipalities and my municipal councils, and I reminded them that in past--and I think if everybody is being fair and honest, if you ask your municipal councils at one time or another, they have stated--and I am saying this in general terms but I believe it to be true--that they probably had suggested that they could maintain certain roads better than the provincial government simply because they were going up and down them on a regular basis, and they really knew what was needed and when it was needed and where it was needed most.
When we met with the municipalities to discuss this issue with them, some of them were excited about it. They thought it was a great idea. They thought at last we are going to be able to fully utilize our equipment, our machinery, the people we employ, and we are going to do it on the budget that has been presented by the province. As it turned out, some municipalities chose to do it, and I have talked to them since that opportunity was presented to them. Some are finding that it is a bigger job than when they first took it on, that they thought it would be easier for them at the time. They are finding that like all things there are always changes in your plans, and there are always things that come into play that affect it. It think they really did find some were having difficulties doing it for the prices that the province was doing it for. Perhaps that is what the members opposite are referring to when they talk about some of the frustrations.
But I have talked to municipalities that have taken it on and have found great efficiencies in doing it. In fact, the money that has been provided to them is not being fully used because they are passing on those roads on a daily basis, and they are able to use the extra money to upgrade certain roads that they are travelling on. I know one municipality, in particular, found it great because they had an employee that was working about 0.6, and they were able to move that person up to a full-time employee whom they desperately wanted to keep because they recognized his abilities. He was a great young guy in the community, young family, kids going to school, and that is part of the process, too, in the sense that, if you can offer those opportunities, then these people will stay in your communities and grow and therefore rural Manitoba will benefit from it too.
But I do want to point out that I do not think I met with any municipality that felt any pressure to participate in this particular idea. It was presented. The facts were presented to them; the numbers were put in front of them. The question was asked: would you be interested in participating in this particular program? We did stipulate that it would be a three-year agreement that they would enter into, and the idea behind that in my mind was the first year you would experience maybe some difficulties in your planning or in your organization of schedules and things like that. By giving them a longer period of time, they would be able to find more efficiencies and more abilities that they could utilize the dollars that were available to them in a better way.
The instances that I think of and the communities that I think of, I think if you went back out to them today, they would say they would love to have this program enhanced, have more opportunity--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) will have seven minutes remaining.
The hour now being six o'clock, this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Monday.