The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Highways and Transportation. When the committee last sat it had been considering item 15.2. Highways and Transportation Programs (q) Boards and Committees, on page 95 of the Estimates book.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Mr. Chair, last time I left off with a question, we did not get to the answer and basically, to refresh everyone's memory a little bit, was about the status of the Blueline luxury cab licences that were converted to regular licences and the fairness of that in the light that some cabbies have complained that this particular person who owned Blueline and got cheaper licences, allegedly, was placing them at a disadvantage. I spent quite a bit of time I think last year with Mr. Findlay on the issue. I do not want to beat it to death; I just would like a little update, just what has happened so far.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Chair, as a new minister coming into this, I can tell him, if he had a lengthy discussion with the minister last year about the issue, there has been no change in that particular status since then.

Mr. Jennissen: That is a very good answer, but it does not enlighten me. I guess what I am saying is I have not had the issue addressed in terms of fairness. At one time it was deemed to be necessary to have a number of luxury cabs. I believe they got a licence for something like a thousand dollars per unit, if I am correct. I am going by memory now. It was a year ago since we dealt with this.

And when those luxury licences were converted to regular cab licences, a thousand dollars is nowhere near comparable to what the average price would be for a cabbie entering the profession. I think they pay, what, in the neighbourhood of 25, 30, or 40, or perhaps even more, thousand, I do not know the exact number. And the question was fairness. Why did that person not pay the going rate?

* (1450)

That money could have been used for the cab industry in general or even for the government's general revenue coffers perhaps. I do not know what the procedure would have been, but the cabbies felt that there were two standards there and that they were not being treated fairly.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I think the member's question, and I did not mean to put him off–I, as a new minister coming in, this is only a set of issues that I am beginning to familiarize myself with in a way that I can offer him a meaningful discussion. I can tell him that I have not changed anything as minister since my predecessor was in office.

But one of the difficulties in the whole taxi industry, and I will not take too long in my answer, is that wherever government gives out a monopoly for a particular service, the marketplace will put a value on that. What in essence has happened in the cab industry is going back many years there were 400 or so licences that were issued. No new ones were issued. I can tell you that government did not collect tens of thousands of dollars for those initial licences, but the market, because there were no new ones being added, it was a monopoly–I will not say a monopoly because there is more than one provider, but it is a limited number of access, a controlled market–that the marketplace put a value on those licences and as they traded, their value went up and up to the point now where I understand they are traded around $80,000 to $90,000 apiece. Well, government does not issue licences at $80,000, $90,000 a piece. The real problem is Winnipeg has grown since the introduction of 400 licences. So how do you add new ones into that marketplace?

And it really is a mess from a public administrative point of view, from my point of view, because you have an industry that has put a value on the licences. If you said, well, these issues, we are going to issue another 400, or we will issue them to anyone who has $200 in their pocket and has a car that meets our qualifications. Well, overnight, you would wipe out the equity of all those drivers who paid for those licences. Yet there is a demand, there is a need from time to time that the Taxicab Board determines to add additional licences to the service area in Winnipeg. How do you do that in a manner that is fair when the value of the licences is not what government charges but what the marketplace dictates? So if anyone buys a licence for $200 or whatever it is and they can go on the market and sell it for $90,000, yes, they have been unjustly enriched. Perhaps government should be charging that for a licence.

It really is a complex situation. The only analogy I can compare it to is the dairy industry, where you can only produce milk with quota. Although you are not supposed to buy, up until recently were not supposed to buy and sell quota, the fact of the matter is, when you bought a cow you paid a very inflated price for the quota to produce the milk. I remember back in the '70s when a government of the day made some decisions around quota that ended up affecting significantly those who in essence and reality had paid for it on the market. So these things are always complex and difficult, because you are balancing a status quo that is not necessarily right with the need to meet other use.

I do not know particularly enough about the Blueline issue that you are talking about, but I do know a little bit about the issue in general. The question that will face government in the future is how you expand the number of cabs in the city of Winnipeg, one of the only jurisdictions in the province where we regulate cabs in this manner. How do you do it without either (a) unjustly enriching an individual or (b) wiping out the equity of the people who own those cabs now, who by and large are not necessarily wealthy people? So it is a struggle. If we had a clean slate with which to create a taxi industry we probably would do it differently, but we do not have that.

I appreciate the argument the member is saying about some people getting those cabs for value and perhaps being unjustly enriched by it in the marketplace. I am cognizant of that. I did have some discussions with the chair of the Taxicab Board, who tells me that they have some proposals for the next time that they have to expand taxicab service that probably would ensure that individuals are not unjustly enriched nor the value of other people's equity unjustly diminished.

Mr. Jennissen: I think we are perhaps lacking a mechanism to make the system equal. Perhaps it was a historical anomaly that created this situation, but the minister must also then appreciate and understand that cabbies driving for Duffy's or Unicity or Spring are saying this is not quite fair, there were two sets of rules there, and let us make sure that does not happen again. In fact I had in the past suggested ways of preventing this from happening at all. I mean, perhaps it should not have happened, but be that as it may, I would still like some update if I could, in writing, later on by the minister's staff just what the status of those licences is, how many are actually being used, and so on.

Mr. Praznik: I will ask the chair of the Taxicab Board to provide that to me, through me to the member. I would indicate to him though that you are talking about the fairness or anomalies. The market value of a taxi licence is not controlled by government, it is controlled by the marketplace. To be blunt, government very easily could tomorrow—there is nothing prohibiting us from making a policy decision that those licences were originally sold for so many hundreds of dollars, we will add 400 more licences out there at $200 apiece. What we would do in essence is wipe out the equity of those who had paid the market $80,000-90,000 apiece, and again, they are trading in the marketplace between cab owners and potentially new cab owners for that.

Government is not seeing the value of it, and that is part of the problem. I guess the only way we could issue new licence is for government to charge what the market rate is. If the market rate was $80,000 or $90,000 or $60,000 or $70,000 without the car, we would charge $60,000 or $70,000 and Her Majesty the Queen would be the beneficiary. That is one option.

Mr. Jennissen: That was in fact one of the suggestions I think we discussed last year. To continue, I am reading the Free Press, June 23, 1999, about crabby cabbies and their compulsory Pan Am Games certificate course. Only a thousand cabbies are supposedly going to take this course, which would leave about 600 without having taken the course. Now, am I given to understand that they cannot drive at all? If that is the case, the problem I have with it, does that mean then just at the time when you need a lot of cabs because we are expecting a lot of visitors you would have 600 fewer cab drivers?

Mr. Praznik: No, my recollection of the policy was that in order to be able to drive at the Pan Am venue sites, the Pan Am committee require or the Taxi Board require that the drivers take this course. I imagine there are issues that stem from security, flow of traffic, a host of issues. Quite frankly, given the amount of business the Pan American Games is generating, it is not unreasonable for the Taxicab Board, in co-operation with the Pan American Games committee here in our province, to have made this requirement. The last thing we want are people driving cabs who are supposedly aware of the city, the operation, et cetera, to be entering those venue sites unfamiliar with the flow of traffic and other issues about what they are meeting. So my understanding of it is that cab drivers who do not take the course are not prohibited from driving their cabs in their regular course of business. It is just that they are prohibited from entering the Pan American venue sites, and I think that makes a very big difference. I think in that light one understands what in fact was happening here.

You know, I just recall in some of the big taxi cities of the world like London, the requirements for cab drivers there. I remember driving in a cab in London and talking with a cabby. Their requirements, to be licensed, they have to be familiar with every street, virtually, in the city, where they are going, one-ways and accesses, and it is several years of training and driving and learning before they are fully licensed. It always amazed me, because the member may know, in London, like Amsterdam and Holland, as home, there are quite a number of very small little streets that may not even be as long as this building that are marked streets, have hotels or restaurants on them, and in a city of thousands and thousands of streets it is quite an onerous undertaking.

So the requirements that we would put on our cab drivers in this period for accessing Pan Am venue sites, which is likely to be the Pan Am traffic that is coming, surely to have access to a very large portion of new business, the least one could expect is that they are familiar with the rules and traffic patterns and flows so they do not become a hindrance in those sites in movement of people. I think it is fairly reasonable if this, in fact, is the case to be dealing with our Pan American people. There will always be folks who complain, but again, if you are investing $80,000 or $90,000 in a car and licence and you want to access this particular money, to be familiar with what is going on, is not unreasonable. We want to show the world we can do a great job here, and I think that is part of it.

Mr. Jennissen: I want to make it clear that I was not complaining. In fact, I think it is a good idea for these people to be trained. But I was questioning what the Free Press was stating, and I will quote for the minister because the Free Press in that article states: It is coming down to the wire said Head. If they do not comply with this training, they will not be able to drive anywhere during the Pan Am Games. It sounds as if those 600 cabbies are off the road totally, and that was my concern.

* (1500)

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I do not think at the end of the day most of the cabbies are going to want to miss out on the chance to do the Pan Am business. Again, it comes back to them. They have been granted, because of the lack of issuance of new licences, a position where there are only so many of them who have the right to move people. If they do not want to comply with these things, if they think that they can do, you know, just not have to comply and do what they like, then okay. Then let us open the whole industry up to total, just minimal licensure. Anybody can get a cab licence, a couple of hundred bucks in their jeans and own a vehicle that will pass the test. That is not what I think they ultimately would want to have, but I appreciate the member asking because it gives me a chance on the record to kind of clarify the situation, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 15.2. Highways and Transportation Programs (q) Boards and Committees (1) Motor Transport and Highway Traffic Boards (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $376,500–pass; (b) Other Expenditures $199,200–pass.

I take it that we have moved wherever we wanted throughout it. What has happened? [interjection] Open to general. Now where are we? [interjection] Pardon. Okay.

15.2.(q)(2) License Suspension Appeal Board and Medical Review Committee (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $248,000–pass; (b) Other Expenditures $115,200–pass.

15.2.(q)(3) Taxicab Board (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $335,500–pass; (b) Other Expenditures $98,700–pass.

Resolution 15.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $61,149,500 for Highways and Transportation, Highways and Transportation Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

Mr. Jennissen: I would like to ask–I am not exactly sure where we are in my particular book–some questions on roads and maintenance. Is that okay, Mr. Chair?

Before we do that, maybe I could go back again to railroads for just a second, because I forgot to mention it and the minister did as well. We talked about poor passenger service in northern Manitoba, and I had forgotten about the Ron Duhamel and the Elijah Harper report of, what was it, 1994. That report came out stressing a lot of changes needed in northern Manitoba passenger service. I guess we should be prevailing upon our Liberal colleagues in the House to put a little pressure on the federal government to take this very seriously. If we are paying all kinds of money to those members to come up with a good report, why is that report being totally ignored?

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, it is very interesting how many of these reports are done by Liberal M.P.s once upon a time that never get acted upon by a government who, I think, is very content with doing the minimal amount of work. So it is a welcome point the member makes. I wish it was not so, but it seems to be the way it is.

Mr. Jennissen: I would like to ask some questions about roads that we have not really gotten to. Although I have talked about northern roads, we have not really specifically talked about some of the southern roads and roads in central Manitoba as well. I have in front of me here a statement from the Free Press: Manitoba roads will get worse: Province warns. I believe that was November of 1998 where Mr. Tinkler actually says there will be a dramatic decline in the quality of the province's road system over the next several years.

I guess that is happening everywhere. I was just telling some of the people present here that I drove Saskatchewan roads yesterday, and they were not in great shape either. But still it concerns me because obviously we have to come up with more infrastructure money. The minister had made some suggestions earlier on that one way of doing it is getting at the federal government, but they do not seem to be terribly impressed with our approach.

I also heard the minister stating the other day, I think it was last Thursday, when he talked to the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, lobbying the federal government on rebating some of that fuel tax for our roads, that 200 kilometres of our paved roads are renewed annually out of 12,000, which basically means that only 1.7 percent of our roads are being renewed. Now, if I remember correctly, I may not be correct on this, the life of those roads are 20 years. So we are saying it would take 60 years to get that job done, which is kind of scary, I guess. It just seems that we are running faster and getting further behind. Am I correct in that assessment, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Praznik: Yes, Mr. Chair, very correct in that assessment. That tends to be the ongoing nightmare for Mr. Tinkler and Mr. Horosko and myself as our road system continues to get more and more tired.

The member commented about Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan has twice the number of miles of roads that we have, approximately, and less population to support them. Their problem is even more critical. So, again, it comes back to the support that we can get out of the national government to take on these issues. That is why, I think, rather than continuing to debate these things at our end, I mean it is always important to debate them, but rather than sort of somehow believe that we can solve this within the province, we need to have that national debate about road taxes. That is why I welcome the member's comments which seem to be fairly supportive and a good understanding of the problem facing us.

Mr. Jennissen: Talking about some specific highways, one of them is Highway 6, obviously, and I think some of the people around Highway 6 want to meet with us. One of the concerns I have had is that turnoff to Rosser and some of those curves, what is it, Grosse Isle, Warren and I think even Woodlands. There is a number of curves that I think are very dangerous, yet the prairie terrain is very flat. Is it just the difficulty of acquiring right-of-way or what is it? I think at some point we are going to have to straighten those curves. I do know there is some better signage provided in the last couple of years, but I do not think that is the entire answer.

Mr. Praznik: The member is quite right. There are quite a host of issues around the land ownership, railways, accesses, et cetera, that have to be worked out. Again, when you are dealing with a budget our size when the needs are so great, it does take time to be able to address all the issues that are out there. But I am certainly cognizant of those issues and ones I hope that we will be able to address in the not too distant future.

Mr. Jennissen: I also have a newspaper article here. I will just read a portion of it and ask the minister to give me a little update on this. The petition targets PRs 247, 332, and particularly 305, specifically the soft conditions such as the first four miles of PR 305 east of Brunkild, the lack of crowns and the extensive washboard effect on the roads, and I believe a Mr. Gehring estimates that there are over 200 names on the petition. I am just wondering if that has been addressed, because I know that was a hot issue in the spring.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, many hot issues. I am going to ask if Mr. Tinkler can give us a report on that particular road situation, with leave of committee, of course.

Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to allow Mr. Tinkler to answer a few questions on this topic? [agreed]

Mr. Barry Tinkler (Assistant Deputy Minister, Highways and Transportation): With respect to, I believe the roads you said were 305, 332 and 247–

Mr. Jennissen: 247, 332, 305 east of Brunkild.

Mr. Tinkler: Okay, 305 east of Brunkild is scheduled to be part of the Brunkild dike. It will be upgraded. We are just in the process of acquiring the federal licence to proceed with that project. Those miles that you refer to are part of that project. So it will be upgraded just in a very short time here, as soon as we can get a contract out.

Mr. Jennissen: I also have a petition. Actually it came from the member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans). I do not know if it was given to the minister or not. I counted the numbers of names. There are 463. I do not think I need to read all of it.

An Honourable Member: I will.

Mr. Jennissen: The honourable member here is willing to read all of it. Basically the Provincial Road 240 between Roseisle and PR 305 is a driving hazard. I think the last whereas, the southern 2.5 miles of the said six miles of Provincial Road 240 between Roseisle and PR 305 was built in 1977 and nothing has been done to upgrade it since that time. Again, I do not want to beat this to death, but since there are almost, what is it, 500 names on this petition, I will give it to the minister. He may already have it. Perhaps I could get an update from Mr. Tinkler on that as well.

* (1510)

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Flin Flon is giving a petition to the honourable minister.

Mr. Tinkler: With respect to PR240, and this would be between Roseisle, going north of Roseisle up to PR305, that was upgraded to a gravel road standard in 1977. The traffic count on it is considerably below the threshold that we consider for surfacing. That would be the main reason that it has not been surfaced to now.

Mr. Jennissen: So if I am given to understand correctly then, basically if the road is not that busy it does not get that high a priority. I often wonder in northern Manitoba, because when roads are not in good shape people do not drive, so there is less traffic. Also I think we pool our resources quite a bit, so you get cars full of people. So rather than six people driving six vehicles, you might get six people in one vehicle. I know that is maybe an abstract point to be making at this point. Is it strictly based on traffic volume?

Mr. Tinkler: It is not entirely based on exclusively traffic volume. There are safety issues involved, those kinds of things, accident rates. There are a number of things that go into it. However, we do have a number of gravel roads in the province that have similar traffic to what this particular road has and again carries school buses, carries all kinds of regular commerce traffic that works for the area, and as a result it is difficult to get it higher on the priority list with respect to surfacing.

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, I would like to just go back. I know the minister has heard quite a bit about this already, but that is northern roads and particularly 391 because I was talking to a gentleman again last night who was very unhappy with the alleged paved road between Leaf Rapids and Lynn Lake. That is a hundred and some kilometres of fairly rough road. I do know that the 391 committee, which includes Barbara Bloodworth, the mayor of Leaf Rapids, and many other people, including South Indian Lake people, have been working diligently on this project, and I worked with Gail Swaine out of Thompson, and I know they are trying very hard, but that road still remains to be a serious problem. As I mentioned before, the 1993 Northern Manitoba Economic Development Commission actually suggested, you know, that that road should be paved. In fact I would not mind reading it.

Under basic access and infrastructure development, the commission felt that the province should start looking at northern road priorities which would include paving the road to Cross Lake and Norway House, paving the road from Thompson to Leaf Rapids and assessing the feasibility of a road from Lynn Lake to Pukatawagan.

I know he has talked about that before, but I just want to reiterate that those roads still need a lot of money, and I do not know how much of that money is going to be forthcoming.

Mr. Praznik: I guess the member hit the nail on the head squarely. If we are going to manage to do all the work we need to do, we need to access that federal gas tax money so that we do have the kinds of dollars we do to do all the work that is there to be done before it is too late to do it.

Mr. Jennissen: While we are still on northern roads, I would also like to give the minister a letter which he may not have. It is by Mr. Hanson Dumas, councillor for natural resource and economic development in Pukatawagan, Mathias Colomb First Nation. He makes some suggestions about the road we talked about, the connection through Flin Flon, and if I could just give that to the minister.

I also would like to give the minister a couple of letters, both by Alfred Morrisseau, mayor of Crane River Community Council, and I do not think it is necessary for me to read both letters, in order to save, you know, some time. Basically, both of the letters are addressed to Mr. Cummings, but they deal with an accident and a death and a bad road, which is not uncommon, especially in rural and northern Manitoba. But I will read a little bit of it.

The Crane River Community Council would like to inform you–this is to Mr. Cummings–that a couple of weeks ago a death occurred on PR 481 going out toward Cayer. This, by the way, is dated June 15, 1999. Apparently, a lady who was in our community visiting was killed because the axle on her truck broke. We do not know all the details of the accident, but we could only imagine that the conditions of the road were of some contribution. On top of that, the ambulance took more than two hours to get to the scene of the accident because of the poor road conditions. Something has to be done about the condition of PR 481 before another accident occurs like this and results in death of someone else. Thank you. Sincerely, signed Sheila McKay for Alfred Morrisseau, mayor of Crane River Community Council.

The other letter is actually by Alfred Morrisseau, the mayor of Crane River Community Council, and basically saying the same thing, and I will only add one other thing: The last time something was done was when the NDP was in power. The whole PR 481 needs immediate improvement, not just nine kilometres. Sincerely, Alfred Morrisseau, mayor.

That was the ending of his letter. So, if I could pass them on to the minister and perhaps get an update whether anything has been done to improve that particular road.

Mr. Praznik: I would just like to say that I appreciate the tragedy that occurred on the road. I would remind him when the New Democrats were in power, they continued to borrow vast amounts of money, racking up a pretty significant interest bill. If I had the $500 million that we spent in interest today, we would be able to do a lot more roads. The short term kind of gain that Mr. Morrisseau may advocate in government expenditure leads to long-term pain, because you continue to finance debt over long periods of time.

I think I appreciate where he is coming from, but one should also appreciate that a policy of borrowing money today to deal with issues and racking up interest bills in the end results in the kind of difficulties that provinces have faced over the last decade. The good news, of course, is that the Manitoba economy has improved; our revenues are improving. If we are able at some point to secure that federal gas tax money, I think, we will be able to accommodate a whole host of these types of issues across the province.

Mr. Jennissen: The honourable minister is definitely pointing out that the Grant Devine system does not appear to be working. Yes, borrowing your way out of debt is obviously not the approach I am advocating either, but I was just trying to focus on that one road and that it obviously is a dangerous road because someone has been killed on it.

Mr. Tinkler: Yes, on 481, coming into Crane River from the west has been upgraded. The portion that they are referring to is south of Crane River. We do have programmed a project to upgrade, as the letter mentioned, the worst nine to 10 kilometres of the road for next year. It has been approved in the program. It was approved this spring.

We also had problems with the south eight kilometres coming up off of Highway 68 this spring, because of the haul of animals into the public pastures that are located up along there. We worked pretty hard and long to get that back into shape, and I am pleased to say that it is in shape now. I think the residents will see improvement on that road over the next year.

Mr. Jennissen: I believe there is some money for the Moose Lake road as well. Is it not this year that there is some work being done?

Mr. Tinkler: That is correct. There is some spot-grade improvement money approved, as well as, extra gravel money approved. We are currently working with the Moose Lake loggers to work out an agreement for hauling of heavier loads as well. Those kinds of things are still in the works, and we are working with them pretty closely.

Mr. Jennissen: I was at Sherridon not too long ago, and one point that the council makes over and over again, they are trying to upgrade the status of the Sherridon road so that more maintenance will take place. They are especially concerned lately about brushing, not enough brushing is taking place. A moose could walk right on the road, and you do not really get to see the animal, you are right on top of it. It is a very difficult road. I know it is long, it is 80-some kilometres, it is winding, and it is just not in very good shape. When can we see some action on this road? We have been asking for this before. I do not think there is anything in the budget for it this year, but is that considered a reasonably high priority road? I think I alluded to it earlier on. There have been some really bad accidents on that road. It is used by heavy logging trucks, and there have been fatalities.

* (1520)

Mr. Tinkler: We do have funds approved to work on a structure that is on that road. The brushing that you referred to is not part of our capital program; that is part of our maintenance program. It does not have to wait until it is formally programmed and this sort of thing. What we do with respect to brushing, in most cases, is we will look at our program as we approach the fall to find out where we sit with respect to available dollars and this sort of thing. We do then attack the brushing wherever we can on those what we would classify as main market roads, and this particular one is one of those that we would be looking at.

Mr. Jennissen: This is not directly a road issue, but nonetheless it is important, the signs and signage. I am thinking of the signs that advertise "You are now entering Manitoba" particularly. Some people in Flin Flon have asked me to check this out. When you come from Creighton, and I believe just as you get into Manitoba, so you are coming from Saskatchewan, Hanson Lake road, there is a big sign. It has three long vertical stripes, and the paint really needs to be renewed. There is also a little flower garden underneath it.

It is actually quite a big sign, an attractive sign, but the painting has not been done. I assume that is the province's responsibility and not the city's?

Mr. Praznik: Our staff advised me that those types of signs are the responsibility of Industry, Trade and Tourism. They are not Department of Highways signs, but it should be done. I would suggest that my staff will send a note over to Mr. Tweed's department to point that out.

Mr. Jennissen: I thank the minister for that, because the Pan Am Games are coming. I do not know how many people will be coming on that route but, at any rate, there will be some. It would be good to showcase the province a little bit. It is just that that particular sign is not in great shape and should be fixed. The flower beds underneath it look great. I presume the city does that. I was merely asking for a clarification, because I do not know who is actually responsible for it.

Similarly, when I entered Saskatchewan through I think it is called Barrows is the first road, it is No. 3 in Saskatchewan, 77 in Manitoba. The sign there was very small, too, "You are now entering Manitoba." Nothing wrong with it, but it was kind of a greenish colour. It had blended into the green in the background. I am just wondering, and again perhaps the minister could talk to his colleague to get a little more flamboyance in there particularly now we are showing Pan Am Games.

Mr. Praznik: Is the member suggesting we use royal blue perhaps as a signage? I would be delighted if he would be prepared to suggest it.

Mr. Jennissen: Perhaps add a little pink or red for emphasis as well. I would like to ask about a specific construction project. It is not a major one, but again I will happen to be travelling that road, No. 10, 23 kilometres north of Mafeking near Red Deer River. I noticed last year there were barricades up there. They were trying to sort of straighten this stretch of road. There is a big bend, I believe. That was barricaded last year. It is still barricaded this year. It may in fact have been barricaded two years ago. I am not sure. But it does not seem like such a large stretch. I was just wondering, is that not on time? What is the delay there?

Mr. Tinkler: We built the grade last year. This year we will be constructing a new bridge there on the new grade. That is a fairly large structure. I believe it is in the order of about $1.8 million, that structure. It is scheduled to start this fall. Once that bridge is complete we will be surfacing that portion of the road. That will become the new PTH 10.

Mr. Jennissen: One other question I have about Flin Flon again. It is minor, but it could have some implications if something goes wrong. Some people in Flin Flon, particularly Mr. Sid Overby, have drawn my attention to the fact that the 10A road going around Flin Flon goes through a heavy rock area. It has been cut into the rock. Sometimes there is loose rock on top of that cliff, so to speak. Children play there and rocks could come down on vehicles or kids could get hurt. I do not know how to address that. I think the city must have something to do with this as well. I have talked to Highways and I think they keep an eye on it, but nonetheless there is often loose rock involved, rock that could fall down that cliff onto the road, but more particularly, more likely I think, would be a kid getting hurt.

I do not know if there is any way of fencing that off or whatever, but I have seen ropes hanging from those cliffs. I presume that was for scaling up those cliffs either for fun or perhaps Highways was doing some maintenance. I am not sure, but it looks like an unsafe situation. People keep reminding me. I just wonder if we can have a look at that.

Mr. Tinkler: It has not been brought to my attention, but we certainly will be looking into it now that you have raised it to see what the situation is.

Mr. Jennissen: Another Flin Flon-related question for the minister or his staff is from Janice Wiggins [phonetic], who is very concerned about the safety of students living at the edge of town, the trailer park, away from Hapnot Collegiate, on the Hapnot side, most of them. They do not have an easy way of getting to the school other than clamouring over the rocks, which is somewhat dangerous, or going down the highway, which is equally dangerous, because there is a very narrow portion there.

Now the minister has e-mail to that effect, and I will give it to him just to remind him that she sent some e-mail to the minister, and he has corresponded with her. Apparently what needs to be done and was on the drawing board a number of years ago is that road has to be straightened and some rock has to be blasted. That could be quite costly, I admit. I have talked with the city and the city says that for quite a number of years, I believe, even since 1984 or around there, the plans have been on the books to do that, to actually blast that rock, build a crossing so the children could safely cross, and then parallel Highway No. 10 on an actual sidewalk that the city would construct. Then at the traffic lights at the corner of Green Street, they could cross and get to Hapnot Collegiate. It has been on the drawing books a long time. I am just wondering if the department–it is probably not in the books this year but is in its plans in the near future, the possibility of doing something about that, because we are talking safety of children.

The city apparently has set aside $110,000 to actually pour the concrete to do the cement work. I have no idea what the expenditure would be. It could be quite significant. It is a safety issue, has been on the books a long time. The city is basically waiting for the province to act, and I guess nobody has acted for quite a number of years. Could I have an update on that?

Mr. Tinkler: Yes, you are correct, the city has earmarked some money for sidewalk repair and building of sidewalks, which is of course their responsibility on a road that is what we call designated. We have it on the books. It is part of our regular scheduling. I believe that it would be safe in saying that it is one of those projects that has been there long enough. It is probably going to move pretty high into the priority list. I cannot tell you that it is going to make it or not make it. From a department point of view, we are regarding it as a fairly high priority.

Mr. Jennissen: Would the staff person have an idea as to cost?

Mr. Tinkler: Yes, I should have an idea as to the cost. I am just looking for it here in my book, just hold one moment. There are two portions to reconstruct. The first portion where we are talking about the sidewalk and this sort of thing, it is in the order of $1.5 million. The second portion is in the order of $1.4 million, so that the entire length is a fairly expensive project, one of the things that make projects like that very difficult to prioritize. By splitting it into two, there is a possibility that we could address the more serious issues in the long term.

Mr. Jennissen: So you are saying in the nature of $2.5 million to straighten that road out and blast that rock.

Mr. Tinkler: That is correct. There is an awful lot of other things that need to be done to that road as well. When you are working in rock, it gets very expensive.

Mr. Jennissen: I had no idea it was that expensive, but, of course, it is a safety issue, and the safety of our children are at stake here. People in town are actively lobbying for that. I just want to put that on the book. Hopefully, in the near future we can make that a priority.

I am not sure if my honourable colleague from Interlake has some specific road questions or not. If not, I am prepared to continue.

* (1530)

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Chair, I thank my honourable colleague for allowing me a few minutes to discuss a few road issues with the minister from my area. I know the minister in the past couple of weeks has received half a dozen or so letters from my office. They are almost carbon copies of the letters I have been sending to this department and asking this particular department in nine years to deal with. Nine years later we are still dealing with it, the same questions are still up. The same issues are still there on most of them. I am wondering, I understand that just last week the deputy minister met with the R.M. of Bifrost concerning a few of the roads. I am pleased to see that finally that type of thing has been happening. That is about 326 and 329 I believe. I also believe that the minister is going to be meeting with Bifrost on those two roads. There are other roads in the Interlake that basically in my opinion and in the opinion of my constituents have been abandoned by the department. Number 234 going to Pine Dock from Highway 8, I just spoke to people from Matheson Island and Pine Dock. They were at our high school graduation this Friday and said the road is deplorable. No. 325 from Ashern east, deplorable. These are the words that my constituents are using; after many years of driving on some of these roads they have never seen them in such condition.

Overall, the previous time since 1990 I have always asked the ministers that were in place to be at least responsible for the fact of at least dealing with the maintenance of these roads. We know we cannot pave or blacktop the whole province with finances that are available to the Department of Highways, but we can certainly do the maintenance on most of them. I believe that may even be the problem throughout the whole province.

But there are situations, people are concerned. I am getting letters. I am getting phone calls. I just got a phone call today from a lady near Winnipeg Beach, something about the way the department is handling the upgrading and it is not even my constituency. It is in the honourable member for Gimli's (Mr. Helwer) constituency, 231 and 225. I do not know what the department is doing there as far as the work. She said it is worse than what it was before they started fixing it. I am just giving you an example. I would like to particularly ask: what plans does this department have for Highway 8 from the 231 corner, the Gimli corner north? I remember some years ago after the curves were improved on Highway 8 going north that the minister then said we would start doing some work on Highway 8 north of 231. I took some folks who were up again for our son's grad this weekend and we went up to Hecla. We talked about that situation, about the road situation.

Here we have a tourist opportunity and an opportunity to expand the economic development of that area and to expand Venture Tours in Gull Harbour Resort, and there has not been any work done on Highway 8 north of the Gimli corner for 10 years of any kind of significance except patching here and there. As a matter of fact, right now there is some work being done right on the corner of 68, around that area, 68 and 8. These are city people that are saying that this road–what about the rest of Highway 8 going to Hecla? Pfft.

Everything seems to be done south of that road. I know Highway 7 needs improvement. I realize Highway 68 needs improvement. There has been no significance. The only significant thing that this department, this government has done, and I should not say this department but this government has done that has listened to the people is build the new portion of 325 from 17 west, of major significance. If anybody from the department can point out something else to me that they have done of significance in that area, then please do. I mean right now we are also talking about there was supposed to be a meeting with the minister with the Highway 6 committee, same type of thing. A lot of work needs to be done, a lot of maintenance needs to be done. I have never in nine years demanded anything of this department, of this minister. I have always requested—not this minister, the ministers previous–and always asked that the conditions at least be maintained. At least upgrade the roads, maintain the roads. Nothing. A lot of promises, a lot of meetings and petitions. We are getting petitions.

The minister can say whatever he would like to say when it comes to he only has so much money. I have heard it for nine years, and I appreciate that part of it. But let us do something within the government body itself, the minister or whoever is responsible at the time, to start doing a little screaming. We talk about rural development, economic development, infrastructure. Such an important part of this province is our road system, and what is happening to it? It is crumbling away. That may not be just in my area; I think it is in a lot or areas, perhaps even in the minister's area right now. I am sure he is getting some steam about roads in his constituency.

I understand that only so much can be done, but this member has asked politely by letter, by Estimates, by understanding, by discussion with all the previous ministers to get this department to provide some infrastructure in my community and some of the other communities that they have abandoned. So I am hoping that some positives come out of the meeting with Bifrost concerning these two roads; 234, for example, I have asked and asked and so have the community people out there. It is a winter road situation. Biscuit Harbour is out there. It gets hundreds of American people coming out there, driving out, and nothing is done. It is in deplorable condition, it really is. People tell me, yes, there is somebody out there grading. Well, they graded yesterday but it rained, or they graded last night after it rained, or this or that or whatever.

I know that there are plans of improving from Beaver Creek to Pine Dock. Where is that? I know that there has been something on the books for that, widening or improvement or changing, for over 10 years.

These are just examples, and I am not attempting to or want to hit on a department for itself, because I know that they are only allowed with the money–but I think there should be the will of this government to be able to at least say: roads are in need of maintenance. Let us do something about that, and let us provide the best maintenance we can. If we are not going to be able to pave it or blacktop it, let us keep it up. In many situations that has not been done.

I ask this minister to hopefully be more positive and hopefully be more—I cannot think of the word to get him to listen to the people of my area. It is not just the member speaking; it is not the member trying to get support for himself. I drive those roads too, and a lot of other people who come from other parts of Manitoba drive those roads, and they say the same thing.

So I would just put on record that hopefully the roads that I have written to the minister about, that we are going to be dealing with them. I too say that the most important thing–and I convince people, after they stop screaming at me and about the way the government is treating them, their infrastructure, I get them to agree that the best thing to do is to just get some good maintenance on some of those roads. We cannot have blacktop everywhere, I know that.

With those few comments I thank the minister, and I certainly hope that we can work with it and in some of those situations improve them. Thank you.

* (1540)

Mr. Praznik: I would like to say to the member that this government and this minister take infrastructure needs very, very seriously. He did flag the issue of limited financial resources, and regrettably the member was not part of our discussions over the last few sessions in which the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) and I talked about the issues of gasoline tax, where our national government today raises $147 million a year in our province and does not contribute one penny back to road infrastructure maintenance.

We talked about that same federal government raising between $4 billion and $5 billion nationally, of which they spent only last year some $300 million on roads. All of it, every penny, was spent east of the Ottawa River in the provinces of Quebec and a variety of Maritime provinces, the great unfairness with that, and the fact that if we did have access through one means or another, as we have discussed in great detail in the course of these Estimates, with that gasoline revenue and we shared with the municipalities, we would be able to keep up with the demand on our roads.

If the member had been part of these discussions, and I appreciate members have other responsibilities, but over the last few days we have discussed the fact that we have 12,000 kilometres of paved road in our province. We are only replacing less than 200 kilometres a year, meaning an effective turnaround of one in 60 years, when really the turnaround should be one in 20. The member will appreciate the magnitude of the problem facing us. His own colleague pointed out that in Saskatchewan it was even a worse situation, understandably so when they have twice the miles of road and fewer people and resources with which to spend on them.

But I will say this to the member, that he can be helpful to his constituents and to this member and this government, because the speech he delivered here very eloquently at this committee is one that I think many in his own caucus have to hear. In my years sitting in this Legislature I rarely can recall a time when members of the New Democratic Party, as a party, have, as responsible members of the Legislature, suggested and advocated to the government that roads and infrastructure were a great priority as compared to many of the other items that they advocate for.

In fact, my colleagues on my side of the House will recall many times in Question Period and in debates where the priorities of his party in the Legislature were for a variety of social spending, some of the areas of which have produced dubious results over the last 20 or 30 years. The reality for all of us at these tables, of course, is that government is not about absolutes. We do not have enough resources, not government, the people of our province do not have enough resources to deal with all the demands that can be placed upon them. So we do have to make priorities.

Day after day in this Legislature, I can say this as a former Minister of Health, never once do I recall the Leader of the Opposition getting up to ask why we were not spending money on roads in his riding or any other riding in this province. The demands he has always rose on are for health care, for social spending. The member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), my critic, always had the lead questions in Question Period, again in areas of health.

I can say this as a former Health minister, with clear conscience. There are many places in health care where dollars can be spent more efficiently, and that was the thrust of the kind of reform that we have taken on, the amalgamation of health authorities, for example, the better central direction and planning. In each step of that way, on many, many occasions, members of the New Democratic Party opposed those initiatives. In fact, in opposing even the centralization of food services in Winnipeg, which was an initiative of the nine Winnipeg hospitals which I think at the end of the day, when it is fully implemented, will have a savings, members opposite advocated very strongly that we should continue to spend more than we have to on providing food just so we keep the union jobs with the United Food and Commercial Workers.

Well, all of those are the choices of priority. In my experience in the Legislature, with few exceptions, and there are some members of the New Democratic Party, in discussions I have had, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) being one, where we have had some very candid discussions about priorities within government, but in the vast majority of cases, the New Democratic Party in the Legislature has always supported anybody's demand for everything without really, as a party, coming forward to say: how do we get the right balance?

I can tell you as the Minister of Highways now, having been a former Minister of Health, I do not recall very many times when road infrastructure has been a high priority for the New Democratic caucus as a caucus. Oh, yes, in absolute terms, you must spend more in total on everything, but in terms of the kind of choices that have to be made, not the case. Having sat as Health minister for two years and been roundly criticized by colleagues of the member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans) on many choices we made in Health that have reduced expenditures and streamlined areas in health care, that have resulted in better service and savings to fund other things, not highways, but certainly made our health dollars stretch further, I think of all the times we were criticized for making those steps.

How many times colleagues of his in the Legislature have advocated that we continue to spend more money than we need to, to provide a service because it protected somebody's job in the system or some union's position in the system or some service where a few people may have opposed it? I think of the Misericordia Hospital, for example. The need to change the function of the Misericordia into what it was needed to be in the system, where it could result in savings so dollars could be spent on other things, members of the New Democratic Party opposed publicly. In other words, they said it is okay to waste the money because we do not want to do the tough things that you need to get better value for money, and all of that gets woven back in a thread that comes back to the problems that he is facing today.

You cannot come to this table with a clear conscience and say you need to do more in highways; it is a priority, when last month and last year, your colleagues were in the Legislature, banging on the table, demanding that money be spent in ways that quite frankly did not get value for money, which meant less value for money in health care, which comes back to health being such a huge demand on the Treasury that without finding savings to slacken the demand which then results in having perhaps more resources available for things like highways and roads. So we all have to live with the decisions we make.

I say to him I do not doubt his sincerity in representing his members, but we, as politicians, just like our citizens, have to appreciate government, about balance, and there is only a certain amount of money, unless, of course, you want to borrow. If you want to continue to put the province into debt and to borrow money and pay interest on that, well, you can do more things today, but if I recall, even despite the criticisms of this budget, both members of the opposition who are in this committee room today voted for it, rose in their place and voted for this budget, including its expenditure levels on highways, accepting wholeheartedly the balance that we had proposed to the Legislature.

An Honourable Member: Are you on a pedestal or are you dealing with the issues?

Mr. Praznik: Well, after joining the Estimates process here at the tail end of the discussion, after some very good discussion about financing highways that we have had over the last few days, he comes into this committee at the last minute to put on the record a number of requests and, I imagine, to demonstrate some point to his constituents what a great MLA he is in getting on the record without facing the music of the discussion, a very important debate in discussion, on how we finance roads, particularly in comparison to other parts of government operations.

I have to tell the member for the Interlake (Mr. C. Evans) we have had some very good discussions over the last few days in this committee about the problems facing us, about how we have to address them because it is easy to say, well, I do not want to hear about them, the member says.

An Honourable Member: So I will read about them.

Mr. Praznik: Well, the member can now read about them; that is all fine.

Mr. C. Evans: The minister, like I said off the record, seems to me to have jumped on a pedestal because I did come in. The reasons why I came in at this time have nothing to do with the issue at hand. There are other things that need to be done. There are other situations that did not and were not able to provide me the opportunity to come in and bring the issues up at a sooner point in time.

Neither the department nor any of us here need a lesson on how the running of the politicians and the government go. We all know that. We have asked some questions and these are the same questions, the same issues, that I have raised for nine years. I was trying to make a point with the minister, hoping that this minister, after going through two others, would at least have the decency to take the issues that we are bringing, whether it be at the eleventh hour or at the first hour, seriously.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for the Interlake does not have a point of order. We have had discussions that have been far ranging.

The honourable minister, to finish his comments.

* (1550)

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, it is not my intention to be on a pedestal to trumpet these issues or otherwise, but I would like to ask, in fact I am appealing to the member for Interlake, that within the privacy of the caucus room of the New Democratic Party, as a rural MLA, to raise with his colleagues, particularly his Winnipeg colleagues, who day after day get up and demand a variety of dollars to be spent on a host of areas of programming that obviously compete for the same dollars we are for Highways, it would be nice to know as a rural member that he is making the point of the importance of infrastructure to the social and economic well-being of rural communities.

I will tell you, when we go to Treasury Board to fight for our share of the budget each year, if his colleagues have been mounting attacks on a host of areas that require more social spending, for example, and have made them the big public issues of the day that need to be addressed, they have created the dynamics that make it far more difficult to secure money for infrastructure.

So I am not trying to lecture him in any way or put myself up on a pedestal somehow. What I am trying to explain to him is the need for his assistance in his caucus with his colleagues who continually place on government demands that compete for dollars for infrastructure. Given the change of viewpoint of the New Democratic Party now in the 11th year of being in opposition to support the principle of a balanced budget, that part of balancing the budget means making these choices and trying to achieve a balance.

Does Highways have all the money I would like? Absolutely not. That is why we have had very good discussions about the need for dedicated gas tax funding, the need for the discipline of a dedicated gas tax, because fundamentally the only way that I can address the issues in his bailiwick and mine and everywhere else across the province is to have the kind of level of financial support that allows me to do it. Otherwise I am just taking a certain amount of money and juggling it here and there and fixing a little here, fixing a little there to no one's satisfaction. That is the kind of debate and discussion we have had in this committee over the last number of sessions.

So I say to him I look forward to being able to do what I am able to do within the confines of our budget, but fundamentally it is incumbent upon all of us of whatever political stripe who believe in the importance of sustainable funding for our infrastructure to be, within whatever venue is available to us, including our own party caucuses, advocating, advocating, advocating for that sustainable funding, knowing full well that it is competing with many other demands on the public treasury that some would argue, including me, in many cases, are highly advantageous, but if we continue to ignore the infrastructure side, we will do so at our peril. So it is important for all of us. That is the kind of tenor of discussion we have had here over the last few days. I appreciate the specific issues.

Perhaps Mr. Tinkler would like to provide some specifics on the roads that the member has outlined.

Mr. Tinkler: The two roads that were mentioned were PTH 8 from 231 north to 68 Highway, and 234 from No. 8 up to Calder's Dock, yes, Pine Dock. Just by way of reference, we do have some survey and design and acquisition of right-of-way scheduled on No. 8 north of Gimli. Also we have been working on 234. We have put some extra dust control in there. We have got some extra gravel in there. It is our intention to program some spot grade improvements in the worst areas on 234 to try and keep it at a decent level of service. Just by way of putting it in perspective, to upgrade No. 8 from 231 up to 68 is in the order of about $8 million.

The piece on 234, to upgrade it to a surfaced standard that would not carry the heaviest of loads but would provide a good service is about $14 million. They are significant expenditures and drain on a capital budget that is, as you know, what it is. It is our intention to work on 234 and to address the worst situations to try and make it at least a livable kind of road to drive on in the short term. No. 8, we are working on it. It would be our intention to upgrade it right through to Riverton and, as I say, we have got some survey and design already programmed on the next stretch north plus right-of-way.

Mr. Chairperson: 15.3. Infrastructure Works (a) Maintenance Program $59,594,900–pass.

15.3.(b) Mechanical Equipment Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $7,024,000–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $16,444,000–pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($23,468,000)–pass.

15.3.(c) Construction and Upgrading of Provincial Trunk Highways, Provincial Roads and Related Projects $110,500,000–pass.

15.3.(d) Aid to Cities, Towns and Villages $1,300,000–pass.

15.3.(e) Work in Municipalities, Local Government Districts and Unorganized Territory $3,229,000–pass.

15.3.(f) Rural Municipal Bridge Assistance Program $400,000–pass.

15.3.(g) Other Projects $3,905,800–pass.

15.3.(h) Less: Recoverable from Capital Initiatives ($11,000,000)–pass.

Resolution 15.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $167,929,700 for Highways and Transportation, Infrastructure Works, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

Mr. Jennissen: As I listened to the minister, and in defence of my colleague from Interlake (Mr. C. Evans) who was obviously showing frustration because his roads are not being fixed, and the minister has been hearing about my frustration about northern roads being fixed, I also understand the minister's frustration about not having enough money to do the job he would like to do. I understand that. But sometimes in order to compare, I think we need maybe a different mechanism. I am wondering if the department has ever done that.

If I go back to the 1980s, I know some of those years, whether it was under a New Democratic Party administration or a Conservative, it does not matter at this point, but the figures were for capital projects around $100 million, roughly, you know, give or take a few million. If we had those in constant dollars, would we not be worse off today than we were 10 years ago, because it seems to me that $100 million, let us say in the mid-'80s or late '80s would be worth a heck of a lot more than $110 million today?

Mr. Praznik: One can do the math, but I just tell you this, that the last year of the Pawley government we were down in those dollars to $80-some million, $82-million highway project. Speaking to a former Minister of Highways, who now happens to be a very strong supporter of this government, a former New Democratic Party Minister of Highways, when he speaks to me about the internal workings of the NDP party in his days, there was virtually no support at all for infrastructure. That is why I say to the member for the Interlake (Mr. C. Evans) that, you know, the experience of that former minister, Mr. Uskiw, former member for Lac du Bonnet, when he talks about the attitude towards highways and infrastructure in the days of the Pawley government, if that situation persists even to half the degree in the current NDP caucus, I am sure that these two members here today would be absolute minorities in support of road projects. That is why we see in the House regularly the demands for other things. There is no doubt that every time the issues in the Free Press and the issues in the Legislature reflect a host of social demands or other demands on the Treasury, roads are always an easy one to argue, well, you can put it off another year.

That is the discussion we had because I think all partisan politics aside, that Canadians are now ready, firstly, to be engaged in the debate and, secondly, I think to come to the conclusion that dedicated fuel taxes for their roads is the way to go because it has the discipline needed to ensure that the issue of the day does not grab the dollars to put off the necessary road infrastructure.

Mr. C. Evans: Just in closing comments, the minister talks about the taxes and the federal government. I just want him also to look back on Hansard, and in the nine years that I have been around here and the five or so, whatever, four, that the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) has been around, we have supported this government as far as attempting to reach some sort of agreements with the federal governments of the day, Conservative and Liberal, in trying to release the purse strings on those taxes that they are taking from here.

So I want the minister to look back on Hansard. This member and the member for Flin Flon, I am sure over the nine years during debates, discussions, whether it be through resolutions or on Highways itself, whenever the former ministers have talked about that, we have supported that incentive and initiative, and we will continue to support it whether we are in opposition or in government.

* (1600)

Mr. Praznik: It would be interesting to do a study of Question Periods over the last decade to see which questions were lead, second, third in the order compared to the tail end of the last 15 minutes of Question Period. I bet you we would be hard-pressed to find more than a dozen days on which a Highways question, outside of maybe a major collapse of some road somewhere, ever made it into the lead questions in Question Period.

The only reason I say that, again, it just underlines from a good public policy viewpoint the need for infrastructure renewal as one of the critical issues facing the nation. Yet from the editorial perspective of most newspapers or media outlets, it is not politically sexy enough to be able to warrant that kind of information and public debate. But how many times we have seen questions in Question Period where a particular individual case of a particular need which often when investigated may not even prove to be what it appeared to be, of course is the lead question, the lead issue, not only with the opposition but with the media, and the demand for dollars for this or that.

Infrastructure and roads rarely ever get that kind of ongoing, sustained attention as a regular matter week after week, month after month, year after year. Yes, you will get the flash-in-the-pan story about roads, but that is not good public debate. Quite frankly, we as politicians, we can try to get an issue before the public, but if we do not have the co-operation of the media and other organizations to make it an issue, it makes it even that much more difficult.

So I appeal to all members of all parties, even the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), I would appeal to him to join with his colleagues from Flin Flon and the Interlake within the confines of the New Democratic Party to ensure that roadways and highways infrastructure are becoming a priority and understand, I say to the member for the Interlake (Mr. C. Evans), if the federal government dedicates the gas tax to Highways, it does mean they will have less money somewhere else, and that means some other part of government services, perhaps in the social services area, will have less. Advocating for that expenditure means you also have to accept some other reduction somewhere else and face the criticism when that happens. If you are not prepared to do that, then advocating for that change, quite frankly, is meaningless.

So you need to solicit the support of the member for Elmwood as an urban colleague to fight that battle within your own caucus, and I am sure the member for Elmwood would certainly be interested in joining your coalition to fight for that kind of recognition within the NDP caucus, where we know it is a difficult battle.

Mr. Jennissen: I would like to respond to the minister. He pointed out that Question Period was not often led off with, let us say, an infrastructure question. He is quite right on that, but I do not think it is an accurate gauge though. I do not think we can use Question Period, because it is not the practical part of government or opposition. It has never been sexy. Infrastructure just is not sexy. That is just the reality, and the media does not relate to it.

But, certainly, if the minister is saying infrastructure is important for building wealth, it certainly is, and we need better infrastructure. And we want a larger pie. We are not talking about shrinking the pie, and we cannot make that economic pie grow unless we have a decent infrastructure. That is certainly true. I do not think, though, that you can use Question Period as a gauge of whether we think infrastructure is important or not by merely where we place the question, because there are other agendas and there are other ways of operating, obviously.

Media has a big part to play in it, too. I think media does not relate very well to infrastructure questions, so they do not dominate Question Period. I just wanted to point that out.

Anyway, I am prepared to continue with line by line unless there is a colleague that has a specific question to ask on roads. [interjection] Apparently there is a colleague who has a specific question to ask.

Mr. Chairperson: 15.4. Amortization of Capital Assets.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Thank you for allowing me to get a couple minutes in on these Estimates. I apologize for being late. I wanted to ask the minister, there have been requests made several times by the people of Pelican Rapids to have their road upgraded. There was a commitment made by a few ministers of Highways back where there would be a commitment to continuous salting of the road. That was never delivered on and that has not been happening. The people of that community which is Shoal Lake reserve and the Pelican Rapids community would very much like to have a surface put on that road. I would like to ask the minister what the possibilities of that are. We had heard indications another time that if the federal government was willing to put some money into it, that could possibly happen. Has the department looked at the road into Pelican Rapids, and are there any plans to upgrade that road?

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, before I ask Mr. Tinkler to provide that information as agreed to previously by the committee, I just want to welcome the member for Swan River. I have to say we have had quite an exciting afternoon from having one member of the New Democratic caucus who was here ready to fight for infrastructure, we have now added the member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans). I see the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) has joined us, now the member for Swan River. An idea whose time has come is a proinfrastructure minicaucus within the New Democrats to fight with other members like the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), and the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), and the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), and the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) and others in their caucus who are continually trying to take infrastructure dollars away from roads. I am really pleased to see that the member for Swan River is joining with this infrastructure rump group–[interjection]

The member says only to represent her constituents. I would think she would have more than just her constituents in mind but truly the economic and social good of the province in the long run. Like most New Democrats they come to the table, with the exception of the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), kicking and screaming to support infrastructure, dragged there by their constituents because their party generally has always stolen from the infrastructure bundle to support other causes. I am very glad through my inspiration here this afternoon we tend to be forming a group within the New Democratic Party to fight with the other side of their caucus to get some balance which we have rarely seen. I am going to have to ask Mr. Tinkler to answer the specifics on the road question.

Mr. Tinkler: The access road into Pelican Rapids is what we refer to as a main market road. At present there are no plans to upgrade the road. With respect to the commitment to dust treatment on it, I will have to check with our staff since in the recent couple of years we have had a program whereby if a road has more than 250 vehicles a day on it, we do provide continuous dust treatment on it. So I will have staff check that road to determine if the counts are in the order that it would qualify. With respect to upgrading it to surface road standard, there are no plans at present for that.

Ms. Wowchuk: I thought that since we were in the Department of Highways Estimates, this was the time to be asking questions, but I did not realize that the minister was going to start looking at New Democrats as if they were not concerned about infrastructure. I can tell you that when I look at the area that I represent, it was under New Democratic government that many of the roads were upgraded, and since that time no work has been done by the Conservative government on them. In particular, one of the roads that I want to mention that every Minister of Highways has received a letter from a woman in the area, and it is the Kenville Road, 487, which under the New Democratic government was widened and readied for surfacing. Since that time, since Conservatives have taken office, no commitment has been made on that road.

Mrs. TerHorst writes the Minister of Highways, whenever they change office, and indicates that this is a road that is one of the first roads in the valley. It is 100 years since there was settlement in the area and no commitment from Conservatives on it. So I wonder whether the minister will acknowledge that he and his predecessors have received many letters from Mrs. TerHorst and have been asking for an answer on that particular road, but Conservatives have refused to respond.

* (1610)

Mr. Praznik: Well, you know, Mr. Chair, it is too bad the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) missed the earlier discussion we had because you know coming to this portfolio as Minister of Highways, the demands day after day after day from New Democrats in the Legislature for expenditure on everything but highways is absolutely amazing. So I think the message that should go back to this particular lady is we would love to do this road, but regrettably there are so many other demands that the New Democrats keep putting forward that are unrelated to this road that it has taken the public money. So, quite frankly, the resources are not there to do it as quickly as that individual would like, more specifically.

Again, on this specific road, my staff advise me that it has a very, very low traffic count and that is why it is really low on the priority list, but we are endeavouring to do another traffic count this year to see if there has been an increase. If it does, based on that traffic count, warrant dust control, that is something in fact we will look at.

Do you know what I find very interesting on this, and I say this to the member for Swan River, as a former Health minister, how many times we went through debates when her colleagues would demand that we spend more money than we need to, to make union leaders happy and others happy in health care without getting value in health, all of which demanded more money be spent than was necessary? Yet today they come and say why are you not going to pave a gravel road with a low-traffic count? It just tells me that they are really not prepared to make the kind of difficult choices one has to in public life.

Mr. Jennissen: Well, I think the conversation, if I can call it that, is getting a little bit politicized. If the member is suggesting that–

An Honourable Member: In the Legislature?

Mr. Jennissen: Well, yes, in the Legislature, a place you would expect it to be. But I think it is taking on a tenor that is more political than normal. I do not agree with the minister that it is a question of health care or highways. I do not think it ever comes to that. If he is suggesting that the New Democrats are forever pushing health care for the sake of highways and not making good decisions on health care, well, I point at Connie Curran. I mean those millions could have been spent fixing a lot of northern roads.

The only other comment I would really like to make, Mr. Minister, is that at least for northerners–and I am being a little biased here, in fact, perhaps a whole lot biased as a northerner–is that under the Schreyer and Pawley administration, we felt that a good percentage of that Highways budget went to northern roads, in some cases, 18 percent or 20 percent or even better. Not too long ago, when I was first elected in '95, and so on a little bit later, that percentage had fallen to around 6 percent or in that neighbourhood. You can argue, yes, now, it is back up to around 11 percent or 11.8 percent or whatever it was last year. That is significantly better, but it is not nearly as good as it used to be. So for northerners, we see the difference, and if we want to put it in starkly political terms, we did a lot better with roads under the New Democrats than we are doing under the Tories.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, just to look at that for a moment, the population north of 53, including First Nations, is about 6.7 percent of the population. The travel vehicles per kilometre is about 4.5 percent of those travelled, and we have committed to about 11 percent, which we are maintaining, of the provincial budget because there is about 11 percent of the roads.

Now, if you want to talk about the Pawley administration, let us talk about it for a moment. Do you remember, in a province like ours, which is so dependent on trade, where so many of our markets are to the south, did the Pawley government do anything to enhance our important trade corridors? What did they spend on four-laning any highway to the border? Zero. For one simple reason, they were ideologically opposed to it. I remember the Deputy Premier of the day, after she got finished burning the American flag at the embassy and doing one of the most classless acts I have ever seen of any public official in the province, talking about how we should not have tourism to the United States.

The bottom line is they are our biggest trading partner. The kind of things we have had to do in our decade in power, like building a four-lane major trade route to the United States, were critical. Yes, the Pawley government may have chosen to pave gravel roads, pave the road past the then minister's cottage up in the Dauphin area and do a lot of these pet projects, but at the end of the day they left the significant portion of infrastructure that was critical to our province's ability to trade and move our goods, they abandoned it, perhaps because it ran through southern Manitoba and they did not have an NDP MLA there. But from the larger perspective of the province, how many millions of dollars of jobs and employment are dependent on trade in this province, and the Pawley government's record in building our road structure to accommodate that? Shameful, absolutely shameful.

So I say to the member, if that is what he is advocating, the abandonment of those trade routes, how important they were, the four-laning of Highway 75 that carries such a large portion of the commerce that earns the living of Manitobans, then that is obviously an area where we disagree.

Mr. Jennissen: I cannot let that go. Obviously that is not the direction at all.

What I am saying is that in the North there are some serious needs. Sometimes I think in the south we make decisions based not necessarily on safety, but on ridability, on comfort, whatever. It is no coincidence that people point out, it always seems to be the Minister of Highways whose constituency seems to have a lot of paved roads. We do not seem to have that up North.

Now, I do not know if that is a perception or not. All of us want better trade relationships. We want to make the pie grow. We know how important infrastructure is. I think we all support that. I think we are sort of getting into a bit of an ideological debate here, maybe because we are close to an election. I do not know.

But I think we would like to just continue and go line by line and finish the Estimates process, if the minister does not mind.

Mr. Chairperson: 15.4. Amortization of Capital Assets $3,498,400–pass.

Resolution 15.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,498,400 for Highways and Transportation, Amortization of Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

We just have the Minister's Salary left, and we would ask the minister's staff to leave the table.

15.1 Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary $27,000–pass.

Resolution 15.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $6,171,700 for Highways and Transportation, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

That completes the Estimates for the Department of Highways and Transportation. The next department to be considered is the Department of Government Services.