Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Would the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Highways and Transportation. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I am going to be somewhat brief. I brought up an issue in Question Period with the Minister of Highways in regard to some property just north of Inkster Boulevard that is adjacent along the service road on the Perimeter where they have put together a grain elevator, and now they are hoping to be able to have a hook-up to Inkster Boulevard, the owners of the property that has the grain elevators. One of the local farmers has indicated a great deal of concern for me, in fact brought–

An Honourable Member: Which one?

Mr. Lamoureux: Not the actual owner. I have met with the owner of the one property, but it was another farmer that actually brought that particular individual to me after expressing concerns about how land could be expropriated, and so forth, which really raises the issue of when that is in fact done.

The concern, of course, you know often you have the need through, it is in the public's best interests. It quite often occurs where land will in fact be appropriated for public use. I think it is hard to criticize a government for taking that action when it is deemed in the public's best interest. There is no doubt a great deal of concern if the government was to attempt to do this for a private business. On the surface, at least, this is what might appear to happen.

So I would ask the Minister of Highways if he can just briefly give comment on this particular issue that I brought up the other day in Question Period.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Highways and Transportation): I just want to make a point–well, my deputy minister has gone to the office to get the large map of the area, because I think when the member sees the layout of what is happening, he will have a little different perspective. There are two property owners who are involved, and I understand that we have just settled with one of them and reached an agreement for the purchase of the necessary properties. There is only one remaining, which I assume is the one that he has spoken with or a farmer who may rent his land.

While we are waiting for my deputy to return with the map, I think there is a very important principle or point that needs to be made. The member for Inkster said about the inappropriateness about expropriating or building roads for private purpose. We sometimes forget that probably the lion's share of new road development in our province over the last half a century has been for private purpose. We built a highway to what is now the city of Thompson, the city of Thompson was built, and that highway was built at public expense for the private purposes of the shareholders of International Nickel Company. There would have been no purpose to build a highway, Highway 6, had Inco not found a mine and developed a mine. With the mine came the town and all the supports for it. The whole purpose of that city was not to put a city in place just for the sake of doing it. It was to support an economic activity in the creation of a mine and smelter operation for the private profit of the shareholders of International Nickel. Now, the people of Manitoba have benefited because we have been the beneficiaries of the tax revenue from that endeavour over the years, but that highway was built, in essence, to accommodate a private development.

The city of Flin Flon, represented by our colleague who is my critic from the official opposition, did not exist until the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Corporation purchased the discovery of a deposit and built the city of Flin Flon to support their operations, and the roadworks were built for that purpose. So let us appreciate that the development of roads is to facilitate the movement of citizens and the movement of trade and commerce.

As trade and commerce develops and shifts around our province and expands, we attempt to accommodate that flow on our road system so there is nothing untoward or unusual. If we were to expropriate property and then turn it over to a private individual for a private road, yes, there is some difficulty with that. There may be circumstances where there is a public purpose in there, but generally speaking, building and accommodating public roadworks which may, in fact, result in some expropriation is not in itself an ill purpose. I just think it is important that that be on the record very clearly, because the road infrastructure is absolutely critical, of course, to developing the economic life of our province.

Now, if I may for a moment, Mr. Chair, for the benefit of members of this committee, I do not have a copy to table, but this is a map of the area in question. This being north. This is currently the Perimeter Highway, PTH 101. This section of red is the land currently owned by Paterson Grain or one of its subsidiaries. What makes this property so unique to them is the Canadian Pacific Railway runs here and the Canadian National Railway runs here, and their purpose in building on this parcel of land a major terminal is so that they can access both of the national railroad systems.

You know, for those of us who represent rural constituencies, and I look to the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) has some grain growers in his riding, although significantly a suburban riding but still some, and the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou), one of the great difficulties for farmers, particularly in this post-Crow era is to be beholden to one railroad company to move their grain. There are very few places where a purchaser of grain can access two railroads and be able to negotiate price with two rail companies in a competitive marketplace because once that terminal was built, you cannot move the terminal.

Why this property is so attractive for this particular industry of the grain industry is because it is, in fact, accessible to two rail lines. So part of their proposal will be to develop a track system and rail yard that will connect to both railroads, so that cars can be moved off of either line of the Canadian Pacific or Canadian National Railway. They ultimately can negotiate the best price, and then, of course, one would hope and expect that that makes them more attractive in the marketplace to farmers who are selling their grain and, consequently, can offer a better price to those farmers or have better options for those farmers.

Certainly, in the age of Estey, as that report develops, this could become a very, very beneficial site potentially for those selling grain because of the easy access to both railroads out of one terminal.

Now, to facilitate this, the owner of the property, Paterson Grain, approached the Ministry of Highways to say: we want to have access to the roadway to the Perimeter Highway around Winnipeg; we need to have access to our property.

If you look at this particular map, and I will share it with the member when I am finished in the display, the property is adjacent to the Perimeter Highway. There was an old access point at one time, still is there, a small access. It really is a agricultural access; it is not built for taking trucks today. They have said we would like that expanded to accommodate our commercial development. That is part of our responsibility in putting through–remember at one time this would have been probably a municipal roadway or what have you. The highway was built, so this is the access point for that property to the highway. We have to provide them with some access, either a service road or direct access onto the Perimeter.

* (1520)

Now, one of the problems for the Department of Highways, just to walk the member through this, is that at the Department of Highways we would like to maintain as few exits off the Perimeter Highway as possible. This is a high-speed, 100-kilometre-rated highway that is taking all the traffic around the city or traffic moving from one end of the city to the other in a speedy fashion. Every time we add another access point, you increase the risk factors. I look to my staff to make sure I have got the words right. So increase the risk factors.

We look at adding more than an agricultural access here. Remember, this is a grain terminal which will have lots of big trucks, heavy trucks turning, moving off, and it is also relatively close to this turning section and a curve in the highway. So the risk factors again increase when you have these types of changes in the highway. I look to my staff if that–[interjection] Right. We also have a ramp going up the bridge that again increases the risk factor, the danger factors around that exit point. So, in order to engineer a safe exit, this is going to be very costly. We have to put in appropriate turning lanes. We have difficulty with proximity to the ramp and a host of questions.

So the department said: are there other options where we could take the traffic off now, where we already have an access point to reduce the risk, and be able to bring it in, and it works best ultimately if we are able to have a through roadway? As the member will see from the plan, being able to provide an access where PTH 6 currently meets the Perimeter, where we already have turning lanes and we have the kind of structure where people are alert to intersection activity, if we were to be able to take a roadway off of that intersection to access this property and make a connection further over here onto PR 221, Inkster Boulevard, we would be able to get the through flow of traffic without or minimizing the kind of risk of taking traffic off the Perimeter.

Now another factor that worked its way into this is that, when we looked at the cost of building and engineering an upgrade to the current agricultural access with the risk factors, the costs, if I am correct, of going with the public roadway, with using these two accesses, are about the same roughly. Actually, they may even be less cost to the taxpayer and probably safer for the motorist. So that was the route that was selected. The other thing, too, about this is we suspect with this linkage, this rail linkage that Paterson will be putting in here, that this particular site will become equally attractive to other industrial users who want to be able to access both railroads off of their plant site. What a dream, when you can have access to both railroads and get into competitive bidding to carry your freight because you can deal with both on the same connection. You do not have to move your plant.

So we suspect this particular site, being close to the two railroads with the rail linkage which is being negotiated with the railroads by Paterson Grain and with this road system, will become a very exciting property or area for industries that would like that kind of linkage. At the end of the day it gives us, I think, a competitive advantage for other development.

Now to make this work, obviously some property would have to be obtained or purchased for the public roadway. Needless to say, we would expect, as part of the development, that Paterson would be building in fact their piece of this roadway, but these sections will be public roadway, our sections will be. Eventually after they are developed, just like any subdivision approval, over a number of years the road is built and the standard will become public roadway as well because access will be required to link that. Those are still details that are being worked out currently. By going this route instead of the more expensive access off of here, we have safety improvements, we have a better flow of road.

Now, I understand that the owner of this particular property, which is the bulk of what needs to be purchased, I understand is a Mr. Jack Oatway, which is an old family name in that part of the country, associated with that part of the province. In fact, Mr. Oatway, back in the '30s and '40s, was secretary-treasurer of Selkirk, if I am not mistaken, so the family goes back many, many years. I understand we have reached an agreement in principle for the purchase of that land. There is one small piece required here to be able to provide access to that property again. I suspect this is the landowner that the member is speaking about. We would hope that we would be able to conclude a purchase agreement. I think if the member will look in terms of agricultural development, we have a railroad and Inkster Boulevard already going by that site. We are talking about a very small, pie-shaped piece of land, ultimately, not one that is ideally suited for agricultural activity, given its shape and form. We hope we can negotiate a reasonable agreement. If not, the expropriation opportunity is certainly there, given the size of the project.

I say to the member, to the other property owners here whose land we are purchasing or may expropriate, this particular public road will increase the value and opportunities for their property into the future. There is no doubt about that in my mind, because they will then have ability to see their land utilized for this rail line which accesses to this branch or yard that will access two rail lines. So there is a significant benefit to those who may be involved in the project.

The member for Inkster referenced a farmer who is not the owner of the land who had spoken with him or brought someone into it. I am speculating somewhat, but it may be that the farmer who currently rents this property, I do not know if Paterson is leasing the land for agricultural purposes. I have just had pointed out to me that some up in here have some other landowners who have houses, I understand. The landowner we are probably talking about owns to the south of this. I suspect that if it is a farmer that is renting the land, obviously this kind of development would mean the land likely or not all of it would be available for being rented. There may be other issues that those people have where they would not find this project to be supported.

But I am sure the member would have to agree, for the purposes of economic development for seeing an area where two rail lines can be linked to create a competitive situation for large users of rail transportation, where there are opportunities to ultimately reduce the cost to producers who are now paying the cost of shipping grain, all of these I think warrant a significant public purpose, a good public purpose that should it become necessary would, of course, lead us to consider the use of expropriation to obtain that piece of property.

Mr. Chair, I am going to ask if the page can just share the map with the member for Inkster. I think we should show my critic on the other side so they know what we are talking about.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): I wonder if the minister's staff would also entertain just a couple of specific questions on a road from the member for Selkirk.

Mr. Praznik: Absolutely.

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): I want to thank my colleague for giving me a chance to raise a couple of issues this afternoon.

I want to ask specific questions regarding the upgrade or the reconstruction of Provincial Trunk Highway No. 9 between Lockport and West St. Paul, a road I know that the minister is very familiar with, having lived on that road for a number of years.

As the minister is aware, I raised this issue before, and I have sent letters to his predecessor on this. There have been a couple of different scenarios put forward as to what the department would do with this highway. As the minister is aware, it is just basically one four-lane highway, and, at times, in particular in the winter, it can be quite treacherous, and there have been a number of serious accidents on this stretch of that road.

* (1530)

I realize, as well, that it is quite an expensive undertaking. It has been projected in the past it would cost approximately $38 million to $40 million to redo it, but there were a number of different scenarios put forward. There was an upgrade, and I see this year, in this capital budget, there was some money announced for some repaving. I notice, as well, that some of that has taken place, but I understand that in the long term, there has to be a better solution than that.

I attended some meetings in St. Andrews a number of years ago, actually prior to the last provincial election, so it would have been in 1994. The minister's predecessor at that time was swayed, I assume, by the media reports from that time, that he was convinced by petitions and other concerns raised by area residents that, in fact, the road should be divided and a median be put in place, and, basically, a full upgrade would be necessary on that highway. Well, here we are, four, five years later, and still basically nothing has been done.

So I just want to know what the minister's thoughts are. Is he going to upgrade that highway, reconstruct it, or, in fact, is his department proceeding with the so-called Selkirk corridor?

Mr. Praznik: I really appreciate the question from the member for Selkirk because we are really on this minister's home turf, having grown up along Highway 9. One of my earliest experiences in life was having to cross the road from the time I was six years old to get the school bus every morning, and selling strawberries. I remember old Tommy Hillhouse, the MLA from that period, buying strawberries from me along that highway, so it is a very important part of my life.

I have to tell the member that the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), the current member for Gimli constituency, has discussed this issue with me at great length. I have to say to the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) that I am waiting with great expectation that the member for Selkirk, the current member for Selkirk, may be so bold as to challenge this minister to pave PR 500 in the R.M. of St. Clements.

I wonder if I am going to have his suggestion, because I hear through the rumour mill that he may be contesting the new Selkirk constituency in which it is included, formerly part of the Lac du Bonnet riding. I am waiting to find out if he would be an advocate for paving this PR 500 because I feel somewhat a conflict of interest because it is the road that runs by where I live. I am waiting to see what view the member for Selkirk, the current member for Selkirk, is going to suggest with respect to the pavement and upgrade of Provincial Road 500, as are my neighbours waiting to see. I know the Deputy Clerk, Bev Bosiak, would be another supporter of that.

So I am waiting for the member for Selkirk, I must admit, to put on the record his support, perhaps a request, that PR 500 be paved because I, of course, feel somewhat in a conflict to advocate that particular project, so I am waiting for that. But I know the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) today has also taken a great interest in this project.

An Honourable Member: All paved roads lead to Lac du Bonnet.

An Honourable Member: All roads lead to Dauphin.

Mr. Praznik: Well, they used to all lead to Dauphin.

Mr. Chair, the whole Highway 9 problem is a very difficult one. It is a difficult one because the cost of rebuilding that highway to divide it given the land, the tightness of that right-of-way, the Estimates of my department give me some $38 million, a huge amount of money, at the end of the day, what would we buy? The member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) has driven that road most of his life. The current member for Gimli knows it well. I know it well; I still drive it. My parents live along that highway. If we had a divided highway, just the inconvenience to local residents, that strip of Highway 9 by and large now is a residential street. I mean, if my dad, Bernie Praznik, is going to cross the road to see his cousin Jeannie Kerr and Ed Kerr and he has to go way up and around again to cross over because it is a divided highway, I think we are probably going to create more difficulty along that road by looking at a divided highway project and probably spend a huge amount of money and have a road that is significantly unsafe because of the frustration.

One of the difficulties I face now is just as we see subdivisions come in along that road and we have approvals, it works great where you have two subdivision entranceways across from one another and you can get a proper intersection. But, where you have one subdivision entrance and then maybe 400-500 yards down the road you have another, we are getting high volume traffic turning onto the highway, it is a very dangerous roadway on which to drive. I know when I moved to eastern Manitoba and drove Highway 59, I know my mother always used to say to me, if it is a stormy day, why do you not drive Highway 9 and go through Lockport. I thought you have got to be crazy. It is four lane, undivided. If it is an icy road, you have people turning, people coming on. I would rather be on 59 with no entranceway. So we know it may be sheltered. It is just nature of what was once a highway with, again, Red River settlers' lots, with homes every 200 feet a lot, many of them 100-foot lots with a driveway virtually on every one. You have subdivisions in the back adding to traffic. So it has, by and large, become a residential access road to some degree.

As a consequence, I think we should probably accept that fact. The member is really asking for my view on the road and where I see things as Minister of Highways. I think we should accept the fact that it is a residential road. I think it needs obviously an upgrading on its pavement. My father looked at it one day and said: Darren, why do you not just widen it, pave the shoulders a little bit? There has got to be enough room in the ditch. My staff come back and they tell me drainage is a problem along that road. And you know, he is right, there is drainage issue. There is a lot of water that drains out of subdivisions now and comes into that. It is carrying a lot of water. So there is a drainage issue and there is no other place necessarily to accommodate that drainage. To the east of the road, most of your drainage goes towards the river, but you have all the subdivisions to the west draining into the highway which takes them to major drains to the river. So the ability to do much is simply not there, even to put some sort of a divider, again, how do people cross the highway to access it?

I think we have to accept that Highway 9 is, by and large, a residential feeder street. We have to treat it as such, a four-lane feeder street. I would love to see the day where we could pave shoulders. I do not even know if we have enough width to be able to do that to maintain the asphalt. That is a problem because you need to have a certain kind of grade. I look to Mr. Tinkler and his nod, but he sees the problems with doing that. So I think let us accept it as a residential street. Let us look at the future about repaving it, getting a good surface and handling it that way.

Now, that says to us we have a problem. We have the truck traffic. We have the industrial heavy truck traffic that we obviously are going to have to take off that road. Going back many, many years, I remember the days of Howard Pawley when Howard said we are going to do this and that, and that is a long time ago. He was Premier of Manitoba, not just Minister of Highways. He was the Premier of Manitoba. He was not able, in his terms of office, to make the kind of significant movement in this area that should have happened. And I say that with great regret as a former constituent and local resident because the ability to have tied up the land was a lot easier in the '70s than it was in the '80s and a lot easier in the '80s than it was in the '90s and a lot easier today than it will be 10 years from now. So it is saying to me that we obviously have to get on with at least putting some land away.

I think in reviewing our plans with the department that the answer obviously is to create a significant highway truck route, obviously, that would go to the west of the current highway, using as much of the existing road as possible. I am also very well aware, as the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) has advised me, and I am sure the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) would as well, that the use of McPhillips or 230 for that route in its current form has the same problem, too many access ways, fair bit of development.

It is regrettable that that could not have been dealt with back in the Pawley days, really, or in the '70s, in other days, when we could have been doing more land banking before we had a lot of development on that route, if that had happened. And, again, you know, in fairness to the politicians of that day, you talk about it and you say, well, it might be 20 years before we need the land and people say, well, let me get on with my house, let me do this, and it is always that balance.

* (1540)

Some land purchases have been made, particularly in hardship cases where people wanted to get rid of their land and it is land we needed. But the idea of building a truck corridor, even if it be two-laned to start, that would take the heavy traffic and have minimal access ways on to it to the west side of the current McPhillips that would eventually link in again with, I imagine, and I look at my staff, the by-pass around Selkirk eventually and be able to take the traffic to that far bridge which takes 44 to 59 for traffic coming from the west end of Winnipeg to the Pine Falls area, so that it can skirt the city, skirt Selkirk, do the bridge over No. 4 to 59 north–that becomes important as part of that corridor. At the end of the day, I suspect this will be less expensive than proceeding with either trying to handle truck traffic on Highway 9 or looking at some of the other options.

So that is where I would like to see this thing go, and it is something that as we look at next year's program I am certainly very high on considering moving up some of the acquisitions, start doing some of the preparatory work. It is going to take years to get this project done. There is no doubt it is a massive one, but I think given the development that has taken place, the truck traffic movement, the growth in this area, it is coming sooner than later, and we have to move on to it. But that is my thoughts on it, and that is where I see us coming from, and I appreciate the question from the member.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I see the minister has his key policy advisors here, so I thought I would take this opportunity to ask questions. I know he has members in the gallery also taking notes of his comments and questions that are placed in this House here, so I want to raise the issue dealing with railways.

I know the minister said in answer to questions that I had raised in Question Period last week that he had met with the representatives, the senior managers of CN Rail, and I wanted to ask the minister the context in which those meetings occurred and if he has raised the issue with the senior managers of CN. Perhaps he can tell me who they were that he met with and the content of the discussion, if he can summarize it, and also whether or not he has raised the issue with respect to job losses in CN's operations here both inside the city of Winnipeg and for the province.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, the meeting was with Mr. Peter Marshall who is the senior vice-president for the Prairie Division, Sandi Mielitz, vice-president of, I believe, Grain and Fertilizer–we do not have their exact titles in front of us here–and Mr. Feeney, who I believe was their public relations communications person. I think there were three or four of them there. I have their cards in my office, but we are all trying to get their names. I think that was the delegation.

The meeting, the purpose of the meeting was to come and say hello, introduce themselves to myself as the new minister in the province. We had a far-reaching discussion about issues like Estey. We had issues about their future, their commitment, their operation, the changes in their operation. We talked a lot about the growing trend for freight from western Canada to be moving through Winnipeg and taking a sharp turn to the right, moving south into the United States, CN's purchase of Illinois Central. I think they have some other railroad, the name escapes me right now, that they have acquired an interest in that has given them the ability to route traffic right through now to Mexico. It is Kansas City Southern Railroad. So we talked about those issues.

I also raised issues with them about their long-term plans in the province, certainly the need for ensuring that they were doing their planning now. I also mentioned to them that the mayor of the city of Winnipeg, the new mayor, was an individual who I know was very committed to long-term planning and that they should be looking at their land needs, intermodal relationships now, to ensure that that was fitting into the planning with Winnipeg. We would not want to see a particular day when it is impossible for them or very difficult for them to have their needs met by a rail system going through or by our capital city. So we talked about those types of issues.

I had raised the issue of the closure of the particular shop the member has referenced. They indicated to us that they were still in the process of working out their issues around that, that if they had not in fact made a decision, if I remember correctly, that was an issue that was working through, but of course there were discussions, and that had led to the public interest in it. They did assure me that part of their analysis in making the decision that if they, in fact, did make a closure of that shop for economic reasons, they would be part of the movement of other positions potentially into the province as well.

We ask that should they be getting close to making a decision, we would ask that they let us know and I encouraged them very strongly to ensure that–I mean, I appreciate their economics and making things work, but we thought we could be very competitive in Manitoba. If that did not work, other things did, and they said certainly. So the message was conveyed that we expect them to try to develop as much economic activity in our province as possible.

Mr. Reid: The minister says that he understands when the company managers, senior managers, talk about closure of the CN Transcona wheel shop.

Just to provide the minister with some background, he may not be aware of this, but that wheel shop supplies those steel wheels for all of CN's system right across Canada. It is the only wheel shop that is remaining in major production for that railway. There are 110 jobs at risk there and the families that are associated with those jobs. The minister says that shop is potentially closing for economic reasons. Well, I can assure the minister that in all of my years there, and I worked 22 years in that operation, that that particular part of the plant always made money for the railway. It has never been a burden to their operations.

So the economic reasons to me do not carry any weight in that regard. The employees that work in that operation know full well too that the wheel shop makes money for CN. It is much cheaper to produce wheels there than it is to do that work elsewhere. I am sure that the railway has experimented with that over the past years.

With respect to that wheel shop's operation too, the minister should know too that just last year and the year prior, from the 1997 fiasco that the two railways had with respect to grain transportation in this country, that wheel shop has been operating with unlimited overtime for the employees in that operation.

So you cannot say that that operation is not essential or crucial to CN's overall operations across Canada. It is economic in its operations, it is crucial to its maintenance of its equipment, and the jobs that are associated with that now are now going to leave the province of Manitoba. The same time that the minister was meeting with CN officials, and perhaps he can give me the date, but if I recollect correctly, the time that he was meeting with officials is the time that that information was coming out from the eastern managers of CN, saying that that particular shop's operation is going to be closed down. So I have to wonder here: is there no communication between the CN headquarters management team in their mechanical operations, or is it just something that they are trying to do to pull the wool over the eyes of this minister and this government with respect to the loss of rail jobs in this province?

The problem we have is we have lost over 6,000 rail jobs in this province already during the term of this government, during this Premier's (Mr. Filmon) watch, and we have to be on guard continuously that we are not going to see a further erosion of those jobs from the province of Manitoba. That is why I have raised it; that is why my Leader has raised it with respect to the protection of these jobs.

I would like to know, because the Premier has said and the minister indicated in Question Period that you have met and talked with the CN managers, have you impressed upon them that the government back in 1993 lowered the locomotive fuel taxes as a means of protecting rail jobs in this province to encourage the companies, both CN, CP, and perhaps other railways, to keep or bring rail jobs here.

I mean, if that was not the trade-off that was made, let us know, just tell us so. Then we will have to ask questions with respect to the real reasons why you gave that tax break. But we want to know if you have raised that matter with the senior managers that we, as a province, the people of this province have lowered the locomotive fuel taxes for the railways as an encouragement for them to keep jobs here.

* (1550)

We would like to know what response CN is going to have, or are they just going to continue to erode rail jobs in this province until we have none left, and that the government will say, well, we have lowered your taxes, go ahead, take away all the jobs too, we do not care. Because that is essentially what you are saying right now.

Mr. Praznik: You know, the member for Transcona just very conveniently, conveniently forgets to add the very significant number of call centre jobs that CN brought to Manitoba, good-paying, high-tech jobs that have come in in a leading North American call centre.

An Honourable Member: 200 or 6,000?

Mr. Praznik: What are the number of jobs that they have brought in? It is well over 400, if I remember. It has been some time. Well, the member says 6,000. Let us go back to the days of steam trains, for goodness sake. Since I am dealing with a party of dinosaurs, let us talk steam trains, because I bet you, and I say this to the member for Transcona, in the days when the railroad operated with steam and coal, there were thousands of more jobs. Why for goodness' sake would we ever have wanted to see the railroads go to diesel and do away with all those jobs? In fact, let us forget the coal, because we did not have coal mines. Let us go back to the early, early days of the railway when they ran on wood, because all that wood had to be sawed, and if you follow the thinking of the member for Transcona, we should never have encouraged the use of power saws. My goodness, it should all be cut with the old swede saw back and forth because you employ more people.

You know what? I just say to the member, the one thing he and I cannot control is the advance of technology. Technology changes the way in which we do our work. Thank God for that because, I tell you, I would not have wanted to farm 70 or 80 years ago with the equipment they had. I do not think any of us would have wanted to work for the railways in the days of cutting wood and shovelling coal in steam engines. Technology has improved the way in which things are accomplished and done and greater efficiency and productivity with it.

Now, we have seen massive, dramatic shifts in the rail industry in the last number of decades. The number may escape me. I look to my staff, but what was the number of Canadians that CN used to have just a few decades ago at their height 130,000 employees? It was a huge number. And today they have, what, 18,000, I cannot remember exactly, across the whole country. I am just looking at my numbers, rail employment. I mean, they were at 19,900. CN has 21,500 employees in 1998, compared to, what, over 100,000 at their height, and they move a greater volume of freight today than they did.

Now, every time engineering and the brain power of our nation is applied, we find better and more efficient ways to do things. What I hear from the member for Transcona over and over and over again is, that should never happen. My goodness, let us cut wood with a saw. Let us never use a power saw to do that. My goodness–[interjection] Comments from the member for Transcona, shame on him. So here we are. The member says let us not use the power saw, because we are using the swede saw, hand saw. I mean, that is the logic, that is the mentality of members opposite.

Yes, I want to ensure that Manitoba is a competitive place. I want to ensure that railway jobs are here because they work here and they are efficient here. The member says putting on a high fuel tax that makes us a very poor place, a very expensive place to use rail transportation is somehow the answer. It was the Howard Pawley answer to Manitoba's problems. In fact, I think when that fuel tax was increased, the Premier of the day, Premier Pawley, made his statement. What was it he said? Well, the rails are here, they have to run anyway, so they will pay the tax. What a cavalier attitude because you know there are rails in other places, too, and there are trucks and there are hosts of other ways of moving freight. And then these same members of the New Democratic Party come to this House and criticize the fact that there is a movement of freight onto other means of transportation because rail is not competitive. Well, you cannot have it both ways.

So ultimately the railroads have to be competitive, and they have to make decisions within their system and structure that work for them. Do I agree with them? Of course, I would love to see those rail jobs here. Of course, I would like it to work and see those jobs continue to be here. If the member is suggesting that they should be forced here because it is not the right place to be, well, then all he does is build into the railroad structure the inefficiencies that the farmer pays for and the shipper pays for until one day they say: we do not use the railroads anymore.

An Honourable Member: I told you it makes money.

Mr. Praznik: Well, the member says it makes money. Well, you know what? If he knows so much about the operation of CN, why is he in this House today and not in their senior management earning more money? You know what, Mr. Chair? When we ask those questions about CN–and I mean there are explanations that they put out publicly, that they put out to their shareholders, and he is welcome to buy shares in CN and go to their shareholders' meetings and ask them–they point out that 80 or 85 percent of the wheels that were produced here are being used at the two other ends of the country. The cost of shipping them worked until it is more efficient for them to produce them there where they are being used and consumed. I guess because they have to run over their rails to get them there, I do not know. I do not know that economics. We have asked the questions. They have control of that information. We can make the arguments, as can the member for Transcona, but ultimately this is a private corporation that has to answer to its shareholders and make its decisions.

If this was the very best competitive spot to be within Canadian National Railways, then it should be here, absolutely, but if it is not, I think, we have to accept that there are other things that we have to go after where the railroad is competitive and can be. So I do not know what the member asked. The member says somehow we should threaten the railway, that we made our motive fuel tax competitive with other places, that we should not have gouged them on that, and we should continue to gouge them to keep jobs here that are inefficient. Those kinds of trade-offs are the ones that got the country into a lot of problems. [interjection] You see, the member does not listen, does he? The member is not listening again. He never seems to listen and he never seems to get it.

What I said is the control, the efficiency, CN, this is their issue, this is their issue. They have shareholders to answer to, and they have to operate their rail line in what they view to be the most efficient manner. They advise the public in putting out this announcement that the consumers of the wheels that they produce, 80 percent of them are shipped to either Ontario or Alberta and British Columbia for use, and that given their final destination, the cost of shipping makes it more economical for them to do the work in both the East and the West, closer to where they are consumed than here. Now, if the member has real information, real numbers, real information that we can use to further the cause, I would be delighted to see it.

What he has brought is his speculation, he has brought no numbers. His comment "well, it makes money," has he brought statements? [interjection] I am prepared to ask the questions, but let us remember, they do not require government's approval to make this decision. They do not require government approval and we do not have access to the internal booking, just as we do not tell every other business their operations.

I will make the case for the general competitiveness of the Province of Manitoba. That competitiveness is here today with no help from members opposite, not one bit of help from members opposite. We are competitive today because of a decade of hard work by members on this side of the House in getting the things that government controls under control where we can be competitive, including Workers Compensation which the member for Transcona has never once contributed to in ensuring that that was an efficient operation.

I say to the members opposite, I say to the member for Transcona, we have asked these questions when they were in my office about their issue, why they choose to do this. If he has some information that is not available to the public that would strengthen the case, if the executives within CN who are recommending this decision are pulling the wool over the eyes of their senior management, of their president, of their shareholders, I would love to be able to know that.

I would not say that that has not happened before. I remember the occasion when I went as Northern Affairs minister to Montreal to meet with Mr. Paul Tellier about the closure of the Churchill line. I remember that very, very well, meeting in Montreal with Mr. Tellier and their senior people recommending the closure of the line, having their numbers and information, much of which proved to be inaccurate. In that particular case, we were able to secure a fair bit of information from outside sources including the fact that CN had not really contacted any other short lines who might, in fact, have an interest. But we did. My department did. I was the minister responsible. I worked with our staff. We contacted a number of short lines and found out that there was interest on bidding on the line.

* (1600)

So, if the member has real information that he would like to share with us, I would be delighted to have him put it on the record today, real hard facts, figures and numbers that can lead to some very tough questions. But if he is not prepared to do that, and we do not have access to that kind of–we can ask general questions, but we do not control the internal workings of Canadian National railway or their accounting system.

So I appreciate his concern. We certainly would love to see these jobs stay here if this is the efficient and right place for them to be, but the member should not be trying to put words in my mouth about this. If the member has a real contribution to make to saving these jobs here by bringing forward information that is not otherwise available to me or to others in my department, I would be delighted to hear it.

Mr. Reid: Well, the minister says if it is efficient and the right place to be, that those jobs will stay here. I have to think back to the 1980s when Howard Pawley's government was in power at the time. It was that government that took the initiative to save real jobs in this province by sponsoring in partnership a program that would upgrade rail cars in this province, grain transportation cars in this province, and save those jobs at the Transcona car shop. I have not seen this government take any of those steps. In fact, if I listen to the minister here today, he has become an apologist for the railways as to why jobs are leaving the province of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg. That is the only thing that I can take from his comments here today.

If you use the business logic where the minister and his colleagues say that they are so politically and business astute here in this province, can you tell me how it is more efficient to build two brand-new shops and operate them, the operational costs of them, than it is to operate one shop that is already in place with a capital investment already made and functioning in that shop? So how can it be an astute business manager to say that you could run two shops cheaper than you can run one at both ends of the country knowing that you have to ship the product either way?

If you are going to use that same logic then, what is to say that the call centre whose business is spread at either end of the country the same way the use of the wheels are that the minister says, what is to say that the railway will not split the call centre up and move it to Toronto and to Edmonton, the same way that the business operates or originates in those two territories?

If that is the logic that you are going to use and you are going to fall into that trap that the railways have set for you, what is to stop them from coming down the road here, now that you have given them multimillions of dollars in fuel tax rebate, that they will not close that call centre and move it to Toronto and Edmonton as well?

So I cannot comprehend the logic that you are using here to say that it is more efficient and that the people who are working at the jobs are inefficient here, and that is giving cause for the railways to move those shops both to Edmonton and Toronto. I cannot comprehend your business logic in that. Everybody knows that it is cheaper to operate one shop versus the two. I think there is even a railway study. If the minister was to pick up the phone and ask Paul Tellier to provide the study that has been done on these two new shops, the study will show you that it was cheaper to run the continuing operation here in the Transcona wheel shops than it was to construct the two new shops and provide the capital investment in structure inside of those facilities.

There is a study for it, and if the minister was to ask Paul Tellier, perhaps you would get a copy of that study. I am not going to do your groundwork or your legwork for you. You have people in your department that can provide you with that kind of research, and I would expect that that would occur, but the study does exist and you can go and ask for that. I hope that the railways will supply that to you.

I ask you the question: did you ask Mr. Tellier or the people in senior management that came to the meetings with you, using the logic that said it is cheaper to produce those products, to move those wheels and axles to shops in either end of the country, what is to stop the CN, now that they have their tax break, their multimillions of dollars in fuel tax reduction, to move the call centre out of the province of Manitoba? There is a bilingual workforce in parts of Ontario. There is a bilingual workforce in Alberta in St. Paul, not far from Edmonton. What is to stop that from occurring there since the bulk of the business is originating in those areas as well, if that is the logic that you want to use?

Mr. Praznik: The member says he is not doing my legwork for me or my groundwork. What is he doing as the MLA for Transcona? Shame on him. This is in his constituency. Many of these people live in his riding. Get off his butt a little bit as a local MLA.

When it happens in my riding, when I have to deal with issues of closures in my riding as an MLA, not as cabinet minister, as an MLA, I got off my butt to work for my people. It is about time the Member for Transcona got off his butt to work for his people in Transcona. If he sees all this information, why is he not leading a charge, a local charge? Wants attention locally? Anybody can get up and ask questions. It takes a real, strong member to lead the charge.

Some of us have had that in our ridings when we have faced closures. I went through that with Milner Ridge. I went through that with Pine Falls. I am going through that with AECL, and there is lots of work that one does as a local MLA on this matter. It just amazes me, it just amazes that the member for Transcona would come to the House, I am not doing your groundwork. I have done my piece. I got up in the House and spouted off about it.

What a great MLA. Well, I will tell you, Mr. Chair, I will do it. I will do the member's work for him as MLA for Transcona. I will do it for him, but I will tell you, his constituents should be asking a real question. Daryl, why are you not going out and making a call, finding out if you get the report. You are the MLA for that area. Why are you not making this a public issue in your constituency? Why are you not raising this subject? Has he requested a meeting with anyone from CN? I will tell you, if it was happening in the constituency of Gimli, the MLA for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) would be doing it. If it was happening with most of my colleagues, they would be doing it. If it was happening to the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), he would be out doing it. But, oh, no, the member for Transcona, I have done my job, boy, I have shot off my mouth in the House. I say, let us say that first.

Now, secondly, another very interesting point the member for Transcona makes, he talks about the Pawley government and the money to subsidize the refitting of rail cars because it kept jobs in Manitoba. Well, again, you know, I will tell you, representing a rural constituency with farmers, right, who now have to pay that entire cost of moving that grain, when they see that grain moving, and the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) has the same issue, because his constituents are payers, and you know what we saw? We saw in that kind of whole kind of attitude–[interjection]

Pardon? Well, no, they do go together. The member for Dauphin says they do not go together. They do go together, because what is best, has always been best for the producers in our province is to have as many options as possible to sell their product. And today I am told by our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) that across Manitoba today there is something like half the capacity in our grain elevators that is empty because the farmers are not delivering the grain. Part of it is price. The price is not there. But they are doing other things with it.

The diversification that we have seen in agriculture in the last 10 years in this province has been phenomenal, has been a revolution. That is going to continue, because farmers are not going to pay more than they have to. They want to maximize their profit, and they should. And I will tell you, when you are in the centre of the continent shipping your grain and paying the whole cost to get it to salt water to move to some other market, particularly when we see the Europeans continuing to subsidize their agricultural industry and bring down world prices–our producers are not stupid. They are going to want to find the alternatives where they get the best price for their product, and given our location in the continent, our option has been and it is proving to be the option where many producers are going year after year into alternatives that consume our grain at home and we ship more finished product, whether it be carcass and, hopefully, eventually wheat.

In fact, if one looked ahead, the best thing for agriculture then, it would be so diversified, we were not shipping any grain just as milling grain. We would be shipping finished products whether they would be pastas, whether they would be prepared and cut meats, whether they would be packaged oil products, whatever. We would be moving that product out as finished product. We would be value adding here. That is best for the Manitoba economy. And that change, with the loss of the Crow, the western grain subsidy, is happening more and more each year.

I would predict today, as a transportation minister, that over the next decade we are going to see some very significant change in the kind of freight railroads carry from the agricultural community, that it is not going to be grain like it used to be, that that grain is going to be consumed here. So that is going to have another effect on the transportation industry, and members like the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), in their own mind, are going to have to make a choice, because you cannot on one hand be encouraging that diversification and expecting that it will result in the same kind of employment levels on the transportation side in moving grain that is not there to move anymore because it is being consumed at a better price for our producers here.

Now, the answer then is to have replacement freight. It is for our railways to be competitive, our railways to be moving more freight from other places and to other markets and passing through here and the work coming with it to replace that. [interjection]

* (1610)

Well, the member says it is not, but I will tell you in our discussions of the rails–I do not have the numbers in front of me, but they tell me that the volume of freight that they are moving through this province on their lines, particularly to our growing markets in the United States and the potential growth of markets in Mexico–well, even just this week with the delegation from Jalisco province in Manitoba, one of the comments that was made was that they have a growing demand for canola. Now, whether that be shipped in the form of oil or crushed down there, it is another market that the links in our north-south trade are good for, whether it be canola from here or from Saskatchewan. Flowing through on our rail system is part of adding to that freight.

Yet, you know, Mr. Chair, I look at members opposite, what has made all of that possible was a thing called the North American Free Trade Agreement and its predecessor the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. And you know what? When we went through that huge debate on whether we were going to be bold enough to do it, the New Democrats, I remember where they stood. They opposed it. I remember Howard Pawley running around the province saying we have to build a brick wall around Manitoba, because we are not competitive, because our people really cannot compete in world markets. We have to have tariffs at the border, and we have to tax the corporations. Do you know what? I sat at a meeting in Ste. Anne with Judy Wasylycia-Leis and other bright lights of the provincial cabinet wanting to expand on the virtues of opposing free trade.

An Honourable Member: That is when you were a little bit on the dark side.

Mr. Praznik: Well, I do not know what the member means by that. Is he making a racist comment of some sort over there? I am not sure. What does he mean on the dark side, the member is saying.

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Chairman, no, I was not making any racist comment. The member for Lac du Bonnet was referring to one of our former members as a bright light, and I was asking him if he was one of the darker lights that was at that meeting.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): The honourable member for Interlake does not have a point of order.

Mr. Praznik: I have heard that line before. Again, members of the New Democratic Party opposed that very necessary initiative for our economic development. Today they just, you know, things are doing well; we will just forget about that big mistake in policy that we made. Would they ever say go back to the old way, do away with those trade agreements? Get up and say that today in the House.

An Honourable Member: How many times do you want to hear it?

Mr. Praznik: So you were wrong. You were wrong in 1988. You have been proven wrong because if you were not, you would get up today and say that we should go back, we should continue to nationalize our railroads, we should continue to subsidize the movement of grain, and we should continue to do all the things that got us into the state we found ourselves in a decade ago where we were in big trouble.

So I say to the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid): do his work as local MLA. I would be glad to be of assistance. I say to him that I will take the information that he has raised today, and we will go back to CN and put to them those questions that he has put. I will take it from my end, as I expect him to do from his. I say to him, though, very clearly, the only guarantee that one has of future economic success is to be competitive in the long run. Sometimes you are competitive, and you still do not know. But I tell you that you have to work at it every day.

Yes, I would agree with him that there are many times when wool is pulled over eyes at CN, because I walked into that in Mr. Tellier's office when their own staff were saying that the Churchill line would never survive, should be abandoned. No one would ever want to buy it. The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) can attest to that, because I was keeping him informed as a local member on the Sherridon line in my role as Minister of Northern Affairs. We proved it very quickly. So I am not afraid to do that.

But the reason I was able to do that, quite frankly, is because we had made the calls to other short lines. We knew that the Gateway North group was interested. We also determined that others were interested and had never been contacted. We caught CN officials, in essence, not telling their president the whole story. That led to other things that saw the thing develop.

But, if I have good, solid information on which to work, from wherever it comes, I am always prepared to use it.

Mr. Jennissen: I truly enjoyed that healthy exchange of views. But I would like to return to where we left off yesterday when we were briefly discussing the extension of the Puk airstrip. I was given to understand that this would occur within the fiscal year, and I would like to find out–it may have been mentioned yesterday–the length of the extension again and the anticipated cost.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, the plan is to extend that particular runway to 3,000 feet at a cost of $125,000. I am informed that the work is going to be done this year, weather permitting.

Mr. Jennissen: When the minister says "this year," I presume he means this fiscal year.

Could I also have some information on the Lac Brochet extension, the time frame on that? Mr. Hosang mentioned that yesterday. I am pleased to see that they are thinking about working on that airstrip. Would that fall under the same time frame?

Mr. Praznik: First of all, Mr. Chair, we mean within this construction year, which is fiscal year as well.

The Lac Brochet, we will be taking that to 3,500 feet. That has been grouped with extensions at Brochet, Lac Brochet and York Landing together, at a total cost, it is estimated, of $325,000.

Mr. Jennissen: The department has identified over $50 million in capital projects to improve northern airports, mainly to make them safer airports, more efficient airports, and so on. Certainly there is some work being done in terms of lighting and so on, but the department has indicated they do not have the dollars to be dealing with this. I think the implication is that Ottawa ought to be doing more. Is Ottawa being actively lobbied then to come up with some extra cash? Because there seems to be quite a difference between what we are putting into northern airports and the estimated $50 million that would be needed.

Mr. Praznik: On this particular matter, we have a number of working groups with officials from Transport Canada, I imagine Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, and our staff have been dealing with this issue there very extensively. Again, given the amounts, they have to fit from the federal perspective within their budgets and their prioritization of projects. We are trying to work very closely with them. At this particular point, I know a lot of discussions have taken place at the staff level as they try to juggle their budgets to meet this priority.

Mr. Jennissen: Last year Transport Canada was considering closing the Churchill flight services station or downgrading it to what they call I believe the Community Aerodome Radio Station, CARS. The member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) had written a letter to the federal Minister of Transport asking him to review that decision. I do not know what the result of that was. I would like the minister to comment. Perhaps he has more information. But certainly the member for Rupertsland felt strongly that when we were talking about increased trade and specifically initiating some flights to Siberia, I believe it was, last year and the possibility of Churchill being used much more frequently in the future if the transportation impetus that we are talking about continues, it would make sense to keep that station at its original status.

Does the minister have any information on that?

* (1620)

Mr. Praznik: Obviously there are a lot of parties involved in this. The airport is in a federal jurisdiction. I know that the community of Churchill is very active in the discussions with the appropriate authorities and the national government. One of the things that we have learned is that the federal government, their view is not to look at a single facility in isolation of regional activity, so their studies, which I understand are still ongoing, are looking at Churchill in the context of other service and operation in the whole northern region of Manitoba.

The second point is that the feds have recognized, I think everyone has, that you still have to have a safe system there, even if they are to abandon the current personned operation and have the CARS system in place, which I understand Churchill is aware of and I think are not in opposition to from what I understand. The CARS system is the Community Aerodrome Radio Station service. Churchill has indicated that should this happen, they would like to be the centre for the training for this particular system. We are supporting them in that request.

So it sounds that the federal government is moving ahead with these changes, that it can operate safely. In the negotiation in the mix, Churchill may end up as the training centre for that particular system, which I think would suit everybody's purposes in ensuring activity continue at that very important base.

Mr. Jennissen: In keeping with the tenor of the questions, they are fairly general on airports, and so on. Last spring, the spring before this, there was concern also about Winnipeg possibly losing jobs when Nav Canada was reviewing air navigation centres, which included Winnipeg. It might have been an ungrounded fear. I do not know. I have heard no more about that, and I am just wondering if that danger of losing 120 staff is now past, or is there still something in the wind?

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, this is a decision within the realm of the national government, so although we can ask and inquire of their staff, we do not get the sense that they have necessarily come to a conclusion yet about that. Again, it is in the purview of another government, so he, like me, is at the mercy of their willingness to provide information to others. We also, as a department, worked with the Department of Industry and Trade in presenting them the case for their operations, the parts that they need to continue to be in Manitoba as a good place to work out of in terms of their own costing for those positions.

Mr. Jennissen: Could the minister give me an update on the Perimeter Airways suit against the provincial government about the crash on November 1, 1996, of one of their planes because the snow-covered runways were marked by evergreen boughs rather than by orange marker cones? I know that was an ongoing dispute. I do not know what the resolution of that as it was or is or has been. Can the minister give me an update on that?

Mr. Praznik: Yes, first of all, my department advised me that the use of evergreen boughs is not in itself an inherently bad practice. The second point is that, with respect to the lawsuit, our insurance company is handling this particular matter and dealing with the negotiation as they should because they would be the payers. So we really do not have a status on that, that I can share with members.

Mr. Jennissen: Could the minister give us a very brief status report of not only St. Andrews but also the future for Winnport? I know I have seen some really positively glowing remarks being made about the potential of Winnport, especially last year, but I have not heard very much lately. I wonder if he could comment on both Winnport and the future of St. Andrews.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, with respect to St. Andrews, again, these are negotiations between the national government and the particular municipal counterparts. We understand that the municipality of St. Andrews may be, in fact, taking over that site and will operate it on a contract with the Winnipeg Airport Authority. In fact, I am just advised as we look through our material that the R.M. of St. Andrews took ownership of it on March 30 of this year and operate it on a contract with the Winnipeg Airport Authority.

With respect to Winnport, first of all, Winnport in concept, the development of intermodal relationship of rail, highways and air is excellent. Manitoba is well positioned. I think all of the people who got involved with Winnport are extremely well intentioned and are attempting to do something very, very innovative. They have had some difficulty, some significant setbacks over the last year. Part of it is being new in the industry, a new concept; part of it is the demands of being able to be properly capitalized because there is a period obviously when you lease planes, you do not have the freight and you are losing money. So they have had some difficulties, and they are struggling through those now. I do not know if the concept will have to go into abeyance for a small period of time but inevitably, I think, will succeed. The question is when. The current proponents of the plan and investors in it have had some significant difficulties. I do not want to be discouraging to them. They have to make some decisions on the ability of their finances, but obviously the work that they have done at some point in time, I am sure, if not by them then by someone else, will be picked up and developed. But they have had some issues and some difficulties in making the project advance. It has not been as successful to date as I think they expected or hoped for.

Again, a totally new venture, really gambling that they could pull a lot of diverse pieces together, needing certain volumes of freight, not necessarily getting them right away, like any new endeavour, and when you are changing patterns of trade, in essence, it takes some time to be able to get the volumes that you need to make the thing go. I think they got caught in that kind of situation.

So they are still working through some of their issues, and we hope that things will come together with them or another group at some point in the future.

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, I think Winnport is indeed an exciting new concept. I guess it is not really new because I know there are places like that in the United States and elsewhere. But I was under the impression that acquiring landing rights in China was the big obstacle, and the minister seems to intimate or suggest that that is not the big obstacle anymore, because I believe those landing rights were acquired. It is more a funding and an organizational issue at the moment. Is that correct?

* (1630)

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, the Asian flu, the downturn in the Asian economy that took place a year or so ago I think had a very significant effect on being able to get their volumes of freight. Ultimately, leasing aircraft, requiring landing rights, co-ordinating all of that, money going out the door because once you have leased aircraft and you have got bills to meet, you need the freight to bring in the revenue. I think their freight expectations, they were not able to secure the volumes that they needed as quickly as possible. Again, I think, probably, I would speculate that a portion of that was due to the economic downturn in Asia.

So having said that, it makes it very difficult to carry that rough time when you are starting a new venture. They do have some irons still in the fire, I am advised, and I am hoping that they are able, either them or a successor group, to pull this off.

Mr. Jennissen: A final question on basically airports. In the Enabling Appropriations and Other Appropriations, that is the 1999-2000 Estimates of Expenditures, which is not the Highways Estimates, but No. 27.5. Appropriation No. 5. under Capital Initiatives for projects which are one-time in nature and will be fully offset by a transfer from the Fiscal Stabilization Fund as reflected in the 1999-2000 revenue Estimates, I note that (b) Highways Construction, $10 million, I believe that is, and under Northern Airports, $1 million–my question is why that was placed there rather than under the Highways budget.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, the member asks a good question. I regret that I do not have an answer for him because that decision was made by the Department of Finance in setting up the structure for our budget. Rather than showing it within the department, they show it as part of the infrastructure vote. It is an additional million dollars for and has been of infrastructure. I suspect that is why they made that decision, rather than be in the base budget.

Mr. Jennissen: I hope the minister realizes I am not questioning the money. I am very happy it is there. I am glad to see it. I was just wondering why it was under a different set of Estimates.

The honourable member behind me just mentioned, and I had forgotten about it, for the maintenance of some of the airports such as Dauphin River and Moose Lake–I think there were a few others last year–could the minister enlighten us as to what necessitated that or why that was done?

Mr. Praznik: These particular airports, I believe there were eight of them, were what are referred to as auxiliary airdromes. They were in communities that had other transportation access roadways. They were not essential to the operation of those communities, i.e., being the only way in and out. We did not have staff available in those localities for maintenance, and, quite frankly, you get into a liability issue. If you are advertising them as being maintained and you are not doing that, then you have a liability issue. Also, when we looked at the volume at those airports, the traffic volume, the traffic was very, very, very low.

Mr. Jennissen: I would like to switch now briefly to railroads. I know that the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) has already asked the minister some questions in this field, a specific question. I am sure in that debate was brought up the job losses, and so on, and lamenting the fact that there is the gradual erosion, it seems, of rail lines in the country. The focus still seems to be mainly on the two large railroads. We certainly lament the rail line abandonment, which has negative impacts for the North and for rural areas and also the extra costs that this kind of abandonment places on the rest of the province, places on the road network, the extra costs.

The minister probably recalls very well our battle, I guess you could call it, with Paul Tellier to salvage what we could from CN in terms of the Hudson Bay rail line and also the Sherridon line. Certainly Mr. Tellier did not seem to, in my opinion, care too much about that region of the country, because he has a different agenda, perhaps rightly so. It is a privatized company, and he is looking after his shareholders. But still, you know, I find it somewhat troubling that the railroad we once owned federally, and therefore, we could if we wanted to, you know, express this as a concrete federal vision, we do not have that anymore once that was privatized. We can argue pro and con whether that was a good move or a bad move. Certainly what might have been good for the shareholders of CN then was not necessarily good for northern Manitoba. However, I think we came back from the edge. I think it is running well now because OmniTRAX has taken it over, but it certainly was a serious problem there for a while.

But other than just verbal and moral support for short-line railroads, what is the government doing to help short-line operators? I know the minister mentioned a few initiatives, but how do we make life easier? Because we all want to make those short-line operators succeed, particularly in this case OmniTRAX and Hudson Bay rail line.

Mr. Praznik: Well, first of all we have passed short-line legislation that facilitates their operation. We have implemented the regulatory regime that mirrors as appropriately the federal safety standards, et cetera. We are contracting with the federal department to use their inspectors so that, in essence, we have tried to make it as easy a transition as possible in terms of their operation so they know what standards they have to meet in terms of safety and operation.

Wherever we have had the opportunity to advocate on their behalf in whatever form, whether it be with the federal government, who controls the legislation that governs rail line abandonment or in any form, we have certainly advocated very strongly that when lines are abandoned that they are abandoned in sections that will facilitate the development of a short line. It will have enough potential volume and connections with other lines to be able to move into operation.

Short of providing a direct subsidy to them, I do not know of other things that we in fact can be doing other than continuing, and, by the way, it is not our intention to do that. We do not certainly have the resources. I think that would just create an uneconomic situation that would guarantee those short lines would not survive in the long run. But I guess the other thing we can do, of course, is continue to make Manitoba a competitive province in many, many ways, so that businesses develop that require rail use and ultimately will increase the volume of traffic for those short lines.

In my part of the country where we have seen a short line develop, the Manitoba Central Railroad, which now operates the Pine Falls subdivision, the continued work with the Pine Falls Paper Company and their parent Tembec to see development take place, to see the expansion of their paper machine capacity, the development of a sawmill operation as part of their integrated wood use plans, means that there is potential for greater volume to flow over that particular rail line, and we will encourage that kind of activity.

Of course, there are a lot of issues to be worked out, First Nations communities, et cetera, that have to be done, but that type of economic growth means the business will be there for the short-line railroads. If the business is not there, those rail lines will not survive. So I appreciate the question. It is something we all have to continue to work toward.

Mr. Jennissen: One thing that I have wondered about, and that is OmniTRAX is based in Denver. It is not a problem with me personally but I do know there are Canadian nationalists who have made it an issue and said all things being considered, if we had a Canadian bid–and I know this is after the fact stuff–why would the decision have not been made in favour of a Canadian company?

As I said before, it is not an issue with me personally, but is it perhaps symptomatic of the fact that the North American market is integrating to the point where it does not really matter anymore that an American company has access to the only inland port of this country. Perhaps it is just totally irrelevant, I do not know, but I do know some people still say that should have been a Canadian company. All I can say is OmniTRAX is working out well for us.

* (1640)

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I must say on a personal note that I very much appreciate the way that the member for Flin Flon has phrased his question, because I think it recognizes his observations in the role of OmniTRAX in the North and recognizes that there are many Canadian nationalists who have a different view, and I think I have to appreciate the way in which he has phrased it. Many of his colleagues I think have taken a very different view as Canadian nationalists, and I would take issue with them, but I have to say I respect very much the way the member for Flin Flon has put that question.

Just again in perspective of what is happening in the North American marketplace, I have had opportunity to look at the development of our transportation system, and for our future in a province like Manitoba where we are so far away from the Pacific and the Atlantic, the ability to develop our north-south trade corridor, eventually, if you look at a map, I mean, straight south to Mexico City. I happened to be in Mexico on a personal holiday attending a friend's wedding last winter, and I paid a visit on the Canadian ambassador in Mexico City. We were talking about developments there, and the Mexican government has built a toll highway from Mexico City to the border, or is building one. So we are going to have some pretty good infrastructure being developed, and the ability to move, whether it be the new rail acquisitions of Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, that make the rail lines possible to move south, our road network moving south, this means we are at the northern end of a central corridor, and lots of opportunities flow from that.

To those Canadian nationalists that the member references, and all things being equal you should choose a Canadian company, but regrettably all things are not always equal. When any company is putting out a bid to sell–and CN is a private company owned by its shareholders which actually in law has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. They were never faced, from my understanding, with all bids being equal. They had to make assessments and very rarely are all bids equal. There is usually a difference, even if it is a slight one, between them.

But, when I look at the number of Canadian companies, companies with deep roots in our province, companies that grew up from very small operations, that are doing a phenomenal business in the United States today, I am very proud as a Canadian, as a Manitoban. I look at companies like Loewen Windows that started as a very small window maker, today a major supplier of windows throughout North America. Paramount Windows. When I look at furniture manufacturers in this province who started making furniture, again, shipping furniture all over North America. Our bus manufacturers. You know, a friend of mine the other night was just pointing out to me that he had watched a documentary program, I think, on A&E about the Bronfman family, the big liquor empire of the Bronfmans. I was surprised to learn that the original Mr. Bronfman was one of the first owners of the Bell Hotel in Manitoba. There are many Canadians. Whether one agrees with Conrad Black or does not, or reads the National Post or does not, I have to tell you, I am very pleased with the National Post. It is quickly becoming my favourite paper next to The Brokenhead River Review and the Lac du Bonnet Leader from my riding. In the newspaper interests, Lord Thomson of Fleet, Conrad Black, I mean, these people have started with very small operations, local papers, and built them into huge media empires and are now running newspapers in the United States, in Great Britain, et cetera, and use many Canadians in their operation.

So, when I hear about this economic nationalism, the reality of the world is our economies have become so integrated. In North America, like Europe, building a very integrated trade block, has that been a good thing? I would say, generally speaking, yes. When you are a province or you have an economy, you need to sell what you produce. We are 1.1 million people. If we do not have the opportunity to sell what we are able to produce, our goods and our services, how do we earn our living? Our own Canadian market of some 30 million people is a very, very small market in the world spread over a very diverse country. The reality of our trade patterns is it is far easier for Atlantic Canadians to sell products to the eastern seaboard of the United States, our Alberta colleagues to sell south into the western United States, for us to sell into the central U.S. and Mexico, and for Ontario to sell into the northeastern part of the United States than it is to sell to each other. So our prosperity is dependent on the ability to access those markets not only for the goods we produce but the services we provide.

Manitoba is very fortunate. We are really a province that sells a great deal of transportation services. Our railroads, that is the point I make with the member for Transcona, is so much of the future. Railroad jobs will be moving other people's freight through our province, providing the service of transportation. Our trucking industry, our trucks haul all over North America or all over Canada and the United States now, based out of here. Those drivers are on the road outside of our jurisdiction but coming home to spend their paycheques and pay their taxes. So they support their families and earn their living providing a service of moving goods around a continent, and so from that perspective how does one turn that clock back?

If we want to ensure that Manitobans are able to access opportunities elsewhere in a fair manner, we have to ensure that others are treated likewise in our jurisdiction. You know, as Minister of Labour, I remember the concerns in negotiating and, as Energy Minister, I remember the concerns in negotiating internal trade agreements within Canada and governments like Quebec and British Columbia saying, oh, no, we want to work in rules that give preferences to people from our province in the construction industry. So what they were really saying is: if projects go here, we do not want to give the work to people from outside our province; we want to give our own a special advantage. Well, that is fine, except then if we all do the same, those people from British Columbia do not come here to work in my province. So, again, we build these rules and we do not let normal trade patterns develop, so all jurisdictions or many jurisdictions have been saying, okay, we will treat everyone the same. We will have fair tendering rules. We will not have local preference and we will let the most competitive bidder win, which means that the quid pro quo is, yes, certainly, sometimes others come here and buy a railroad in Manitoba who are from Colorado or do other things. But it does then mean that we Canadians can go into their jurisdiction and do the same. The last time I looked, there were many, many Manitobans whose businesses or whose professions or whose trades have taken them to work in other jurisdictions where they earn their daily living.

So for those who would hope that we can work and sell elsewhere but only protect our own, that happens very rarely and for only short periods of time. I think our long-term prosperity is dependent on reducing artificial barriers to trade, in harmonizing regulatory regimes so that we facilitate the movement of goods and services and people, and allow our competitive advantages to carry us.

One of the interesting things about that northern line, I know the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) and I, in many private discussions and public ones, have shared visions of how that line can develop. I think, it may not happen overnight, but that line is an option for moving product to saltwater, an option to the Mississippi River system. As the Mississippi River system continues to take a larger and larger volume of freight, it can maybe handle the freight on the waters, but there is only a certain loading capacity at its seaboard end. As the cost of doing that increases, then a northern port like Churchill becomes an option for many in the catchment area of the central part of the continent.

My goodness, would it not be nice to see American grain from Kansas or South Dakota or Iowa or American farm products being shipped through our province and loaded on ships at Churchill and shipped to Europe and other places, then goods coming into that part of the continent, landing in Churchill and being loaded in Churchill and being shipped to those points? Because the jobs and income to be earned in moving them over our jurisdiction will come to Manitobans. I think that is a vision that we share, and I appreciate it.

We would always love Canadians to be the most competitive. I would. But even if we were, there are only 30 million of us. The world market is far bigger. So, if we want to have access to the world, we have to allow the world in our door as well. That is the quid pro quo.

I appreciate that the member for Flin Flon recognizes that in the way in which he phrased his question.

* (1650)

Mr. Jennissen: I wonder if I could ask the minister some questions on passenger rail, especially passenger rail in the North. I know people like Mayor Bill Comaskey from Thompson and Chief Shirley Castel from Pukatawagan have on occasion taken swipes at VIA Rail, and I think for just reasons.

In terms of going the Churchill route, very often tourists complain that there are not enough cars, certainly not observation cars, or that the treatment was not right or that the train was delayed, and so on. We get a multitude of complaints. We get even more complaints, the run to Pukatawagan and to the Matthias Colomb First Nation. Very often around Christmastime there are not enough cars. The cars are overcrowded. People have to ride in baggage cars and still pay the same amount of money. Also apparently some of the workers on the railroad are not that culturally sensitive. People of Pukatawagan take great exception to that, including the chief, and I cannot blame her because that is an issue.

I think we need to realize, unless we have an all-weather road, and of course the minister knows I have been lobbying for that, the rail line is still the most accessible way to Pukatawagan and The Pas. The connection is usually Pukatawagan and The Pas. But the train tends to be late, often as much as two hours, five hours, 10 hours. You have to phone New Brunswick to find out where the train is. It is actually two minutes out of Cranberry, but they cannot seem to tell you. They say it may be two hours or 10 hours. It seems to be run in such a loose and irresponsible way that it bothers people. Not only that, the cars themselves are pre-World War I vintage.

A year or two ago, we had access to a directive from VIA Rail where they were going to run the cars till they failed, in other words very low-grade maintenance. Later on they denied that and said it was just a clerical error, I believe, or some mix-up, but the point was that they do not pay attention to northern passenger service, particularly on the leg from The Pas to Pukatawagan. It is a great irritant to us and a concern. We feel that the people of Mathias Colomb deserve first-rate passenger service, and they are not getting it.

So I am wondering if the minister would help me, because Lord knows I have written enough letters to VIA Rail, his staff would help us lobby for better service to that community and in fact to the community of Churchill, which is a little bit more popular and has a lot more tourists going to it. But we would also like a lot of action on The Pas, Pukatawagan end of things.

Mr. Praznik: The member has picked up on one of my favourite topics. One of my pet peeves is the lack of taking advantage of the opportunity for the passenger service on that northern line. If there is a line in Manitoba in my view that is attractive for passenger service for tourist traffic, for local traffic, it is those northern lines. What we saw with VIA Rail, and what is interesting, and I do not mean to get into a politically philosophical discussion about this, but we had a publicly owned Canadian national railway, owned by the people of Canada, who never cared one bit about the North. We had a publicly owned passenger rail service called VIA who could not care less about the clients in northern Manitoba.

I mean, I have ridden that train a number of occasions, as I believe the member for Flin Flon has, and the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers). I have not done the Sherridon, the one up on the Sherridon subdivision, but I have taken the one from Thompson to Churchill. I have taken it from Churchill back to Winnipeg in my youth. I will just tell you, the service level on that train, I remember in the morning, a summer trip, packed, and you go for breakfast. There are five stools or six stools in front of the booth, and you sit down and say can I have my breakfast here. No, you have got to have a booth; you have to wait for a booth. Well, what is it to fry a couple of more eggs and bacon and put it on the plate and serve it? No, do not do that.

I remember having a delegation come in from Germany, and they wanted to take that train, and we called, and we could not book. Well, would you put on another sleeper car? No, cannot do that. So you look at it and you say, here are publicly owned, socialized industries who are supposed to have the public view, who are subsidized by the taxpayer, and they tell those same taxpayers, those same clients, those same citizens, those same shareholders, those same voters, we are going to kick you in the butt, we do not care. Well, it is interesting, is it not? Really, it is interesting. I do not want to get into political philosophy because public ownership works sometimes, sometimes it does not, and I am very practical about it. There are many times it does work.

I am not someone who says privatize everyone, but in this particular case, I think what you had was a big organization without client service who could not manage these small side operations. It was a pain in the butt to them and they just ignored them. You probably had somewhere deep in the bowels of the government or in CN just a sense that other interests against Churchill, right, because of the competition.

I mean, again, not letting market forces develop or natural patterns develop, always thinking you have to subsidize, led to more problems than it was worth. The pleasing thing now about the Hudson Bay Railway, and I have to tell the member that on one of the first occasions I met with them and they were asking me my opinion on passenger service, I told them that they have to at some point get VIA out of the picture, they have to take it over as part of their operation and they have to run it as a tourist operation. Whether it be The Pas to Churchill or different routes, they can expand that business because it has to be, in my view, one of the last great train rides in North America, has the potential to be. I would love to see that thing grow where they are running big trains, a couple a week, full of people coming up for that great train ride. Anyone who has taken it, it is an awesome train ride through awesome country and really a great adventure. I was very fortunate, as Minister of Northern Affairs, I bought tickets for my children to come with me one time, and they had a phenomenal, awesome trip.

So I say to the member I am a great believer in that. He also raised, because it is not just the tourist industry that he has identified but the people who need to use that line on a regular basis and the lack of sensitivity, and when I rode that train I just got the sense that the local people, particularly the aboriginal people who use the train, were not really cared for. There was very little interest in them, and it was more like the fewer who rode the better, because there was less to do, and that is not the way clients should be treated in any paying proposition. It is unfortunate, and I think it is shameful on the part of a publicly owned corporation.

I have to say to the member that my understanding and discussions I had with them, with the railroad, that their plan obviously was to get the freight moving, to get a sense of the rail line, develop the port, and as they felt more comfortable, the next stage would be to look at the passenger service. I understand they have an interest in doing that now and are exploring it at this stage of the game. I do not know what their plans are. They have not briefed me on them, but I would suspect as that rail company becomes more and more comfortable with what they are doing and gets a sense of the—the critical thing for them was to get the line and the grain traffic and the port in operation, because that is the bread and butter of it.

I think this is going to be one very nice bit of icing for the summer on that bread, and it is going to take some time to develop, but there is no doubt that there are now owners on that line who have invested a significant amount of money in it who want to make a profit on it. If they want to make a profit on it, they need people who want to ride it, and they want to have happy clients who tell other people about it, not just the passenger service but certainly for the local traffic.

Once we are through a general election, I would be delighted to travel with the member if he is still the member for Flin Flon and I am still the member for Lac du Bonnet. I would be delighted to have him accompany myself as Minister of Highways to actually take the line to Pukatawagan on that rail car. I would love to do that, get a first-hand knowledge of that particular part of the line.

* (1700)

Mr. Jennissen: I thank the minister very much for that answer. In fact, I will take him up on his offer to travel to Pukatawagan, because Missinipi Days are coming up fairly soon. It would be a beautiful ride to go from The Pas to Puk and meet some very friendly and welcoming people there. I think he would find it most interesting, so I hope he will take me up on it, if not this summer, next summer.

I was interested in the minister's point of view regarding VIA's lack of service. I was in Churchill not too long ago and met a group of Japanese tourists who of all reasons were there to look at aurora borealis. It happened to be cloudy that particular night, so I am not quite sure why people fly from Tokyo to Winnipeg and then take the train up there and take the risk of a cloudy night and not actually see the aurora borealis or the Northern Lights, but apparently one night out of three was good.

So, I mean, all kinds of potential exists up in those northern tourist areas, specifically Churchill but also along the Sherridon line, Pukatawagan and Lynn Lake and so on, and I hope the minister does take advantage of travelling on that train more often. It is a very interesting ride.

I hope he also will continue to lobby VIA Rail for better service, because that really was the thrust of my question, specifically in the case of Pukatawagan, that they would get improved service, because it has been shameful the way CN treated the line and the way VIA sometimes appears to be treating the people of Pukatawagan who use that line.

The last question I have, Mr. Minister, is fairly short. This is on railroads, and it is dealing with a very small railroad, but important symbolically, I am sure, is the Prairie Dog express and what the minister sees for the future of that small but symbolically important railroad.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I must express to the member, first of all, I am a railroad buff, love railroads, a model railroader. I have a small model railroad operation. Regrettably, it is in storage right now, but I have always loved–pardon? [interjection] Like the real ones, the member says.

I have not set it up. I have had it for a few years. I love railroads. I am a regular visitor to the railroad museum and it is a very short, short line, I say to the member–[interjection]

So the Prairie Dog Central is a road I have a great deal of interest in. I am very glad that agreement was struck that we could save that railroad and that operation. The members may not be aware, but the engine that drives the Prairie Dog Central is the old engine of the Winnipeg Hydro that used to run the tracks from Lac du Bonnet in my constituency to Pointe du Bois in my constituency. It was the railroad that used to run across the Winnipeg River on which we now have a very nice highway bridge that we have refurbished. It used to ply that rail for many, many years. So I have a lot of ties to that engine, and it is a wonderful rail line.

My only regret, and I say this in no official capacity, but I really do think that the Prairie Dog Central people picked the wrong line for that train. I guess as a rail buff of that kind of engine and locomotives, I wish that they had been able to secure running rights on a line that would have taken them into the beach country, whether it would be on the line that would have taken them past Lower Fort Garry to Winnipeg Beach, which is still there. I imagine it needs some work, but it is still an operating rail line, if I am not mistaken. I wish it could have done the Pine Falls line. My preference as an MLA would have been to see that train run to Pine Falls. Regrettably, the track is now lost to us that would have gone into Grand Beach. In fact, I can tell you that it runs just a few hundred feet behind my house as the old embankment. There are homes where the line used to run, so that line is lost to us.

If the managers and club would have seen fit to look at a beach run, I think they would have made that train an even greater success because they could have emulated the old Moonlight Express to the beach, those kind of runs with, I think, a very attractive destination that would have fit into the history. In fact, the Winnipeg Beach and the Grand Beach lines in other days were, I think, two of the most profitable lines for their railroads in their heyday in carrying out the beach traffic. It is regrettable that they did not look at doing that. But, having said that, at least we have saved the lines. They are planning to be in operation. I think they had some glitches around the movement of their station to their new site, but they expect to be in operation by sometime in the month of July, I gather in anticipation of the Pan Am Games and accommodating those visitors. Should I receive an invitation–[interjection] Well, the member says take them to the casino. I am glad to see that he is encouraging our tourists to leave some more money in our province rather than take it to Vegas. I appreciate that.

I would hope they might invite the minister and perhaps the critic to ride that train on their inaugural visit. If that is the case, I would be delighted to share some moments with the member. I must tell him, we should not let the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) join us because he will be so enthused at seeing all those extra jobs of shovelling coal, et cetera, he will be wanting to advocate a return to the steam engine for all freight and transportation in our country. We would not want to see him get overly excited. I know the member for Flin Flon and I would enjoy that opportunity.

Mr. Jennissen: The member for Transcona has some very good points of view. I am sure the minister realized that. He may not always agree with the minister, however, nor should he. I would like to go back to a topic briefly–well, not so briefly I guess–discussed yesterday, and that was Nunavut. I would like to go back to it just very briefly.

I talked with a gentleman today from Lynn Lake, over the phone obviously, a gentleman for whom I have a lot of respect. He has a lot of common sense and makes some good points. He was suggesting that, yes, the Nunavut road as an all-weather road, if any of the three, four, five scenarios were involved, would be prohibitively expensive, and it would probably take years before this would come to fruition, and that a winter road would make an awful lot more sense. But even having said that, he was still hopeful that the winter road would take the western route.

I would like to read into the record, if the minister would not mind, a resolution by the Town of Lynn Lake, Resolution No. 5, moved by Councillor Anderson [phonetic], seconded by Councillor Winsor [phonetic], which was carried, and it was sent, I believe this resolution was sent, to the Premier. I am sure the minister may already have seen it, but I want to read it into the record anyway.

It goes as follows: Whereas the road to Nunavut through Lynn Lake would be an economic benefit to the northwest region of Manitoba and to Manitoba as a whole, and whereas the mines in Lynn Lake and Leaf Rapids are being threatened with closure, and whereas the road link from Lynn Lake to Nunavut would link three other Manitoba communities with the rest of the province, therefore be it resolved that Premier Filmon be requested to support a road link to Nunavut through Lynn Lake.

Certified a true copy of a resolution of the Town of Lynn Lake, passed on the 25th day of May, A.D. 1999, and signed by a Mr. Fred J. Salter, the Chief Administrative Officer.

I wonder if the minister would consider this, and also consider talking to the Premier about this which, for Lynn Lake, is a very vital point.

Mr. Praznik: First of all, I think the answer I gave yesterday is most appropriate here. The studies are being done. The Premier, I suppose, will want to support the particular project that makes the most sense from a general strategic point of view for the province. To ask him to support today, in advance of those studies, a route favoured by one side of the province versus another, I think, puts–and I appreciate the community writing and urging that support, but I think people ought to appreciate that until the studies are completed, the Premier in his role as the chief minister of this province really has to wait to see the work done and be part of making a decision as to if we even should build the road, but if we do, what is the best overall route from the perspective of the province in general as opposed to one particular part of it, because if he were to support that resolution today wholeheartedly, then I am sure the people of Churchill on the eastern part would be extremely angry at him. In fairness, in his role I think he has to keep that evenhanded weight till all the work is done and make a fair assessment for the greater good of the province.

* (1710)

Mr. Jennissen: Before we move to the Main Estimates, there are still a few other little–I hate to call them odds and ends, they are serious issues, but they are kind of disparate in the sense that they do not fit into any one grouping. I would like to ask about them. One of them is, and I almost hate to bring this up, because I know I have done this every year and we really have come to no consensus on this, and that is graduated licences.

I would like to preface this by reading a letter that I have got from a Sharon Stewart [phonetic], Box 599, MacGregor, Manitoba, which is addressed to myself. I think that puts it in context, and I would like to hear the minister's views on this, or perhaps one of his staff could comment as well.

It says: Dear Mr. Jennissen: Thank you for your phone call and for listening to my concerns regarding road safety in our province. I appreciate having a small voice in an area which has greatly impacted on our lives. I have enclosed a summarized version of the blueprint for graduated licensing in Canada and the United States as well as a copy of the original blueprint that was released in January. I recently received this information from CAA and IMPACT, that is, Injuries Manitoba Prevention of Adolescence and Childhood Trauma. CAA sent the original copy of the blueprint, which I just received today in the mail. Dr. Michael Moffatt and Dr. Lynn Warda of IMPACT continue to collaborate with international colleagues on the effectiveness of graduated licensing systems worldwide. Dr. Michael Moffatt did all the research for the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which led to the recommendation two years running for the province to adopt a graduated licensing system.

There is no lack of interest and support for graduated licensing among injury prevention and road safety specialists, but unfortunately there is not much interest yet at the political level. Whilst new concepts and attitudes towards licensing are emerging all across North America and worldwide, Manitoba was diligently maintaining the status quo, compromising road safety and any progress towards a vision for the future of road safety in our province. Four years ago, MPI had a vision and a plan for road safety, but the two arms of government responsible to the public for ensuring road safety seemingly did not work together. Once again, thank you, and please contact me at any time at the above phone number, and I would appreciate any information you can give further to my research on graduated licensing and our government's plans to address this very important road safety issue. Yours truly, Sharon Stewart.

I read this into the record, Mr. Minister, because I get the impression that this family probably has suffered a trauma. Mrs. Stewart, [phonetic] I presume it is a Mrs. Stewart, [phonetic] has sent me quite a bit of information on graduated licensing from Alberta, from the United States and from other parts of Canada as well, including British Columbia. I would like the minister's view on this very important topic.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, this is a very important topic and issue. I have had a number of people contact me since I assumed responsibility for this portfolio and discuss this particular matter. We, as a government, to date have not made a decision to advance on graduated licensing. As a new minister coming in and discussing the matter with the previous minister, I think I would like to offer some of my concerns and views with moving towards graduated licensing.

There are a number of difficulties with it. The concept of graduated licensing, and one has to appreciate that in a variety of provinces where this has happened already, there are different forms of it. There is not sort of a universal form. Different jurisdictions have used different means of graduating those licences. What they have in common is, by and large, saying based on your particular age, you are entitled to a certain type of licence–if I am not mistaken. I believe that is the case. Now, the idea I guess is that at certain ages you have more experience, you are able to drive. It does not judge the driver on their own individual ability but rather on their age. Is that in essence fair?

I know it is always easy to say–let us take the young drivers at 17, 18, 19, 20–that they should not be allowed to do certain things, but what about the older driver? I mean, we know many of our older drivers in the province. My grandfather when he was in his '80s was a very slow driver. He probably never broke a rule other than driving under the speed limit considerably, but he was dangerous to be on the road. There were probably people avoiding him because he was very slow in driving, very difficult in driving, and eventually the family had to ask them to take away the licence. Do we graduate at the older age as well as the younger?

I mean it is very easy to take this issue and say it was because of a young, inexperienced driver that there was an accident and someone was injured. Yes, that happens, but are we also prepared to say we are going to put an automatic age-dated set of restrictions that if you hit 65, you are all of a sudden restricted, or age 70, you are already restricted, or 80 or 85, where we will clearly say that because your birthday is today and you have hit that age that you are no longer able to drive in downtown Winnipeg or you cannot drive after dark? Well, if we were to propose graduation in that phase of people's life, I think, we would have a revolution on our hands.

Today, what we do is we handle those cases on the basis of your ability. If your faculties are failing, if you are unable to meet the requirements of being able to drive, we either restrict your licence based on your individual abilities or we eventually take it away because you are not capable of driving. Should we not apply those same kind of rules at the early part of driving? If one looks at the accident statistics, and I do not have them in front of me so I am working somewhat from memory, but the majority of young drivers who are involved in accidents tend to be male as opposed to female. So are we going to graduate the licence to, say, only young men are restricted and not young women, or is it just age? If we pick age as many jurisdictions have done, then why are young women paying the price for young men as a category?

Then there is also the issue of what level and what restrictions you put on people's driving. One of my colleagues is an advocate, or in his community has those who advocate that you cannot drive after dark if you under 20 years of age. Well, what do you do if you are in a rural community of Dauphin or Beausejour or Whitemouth or any particular area and you work? What does that young person do, particularly if that young person is a responsible person who is driving? Are we meeting the need? By providing a blanket set of rules based on age, particularly against young people, without testing for ability or responsibility, are we really doing that justice? I have trouble with that. I must admit as a minister I am not an advocate, at this point in my career, for graduated licensing. It would not be something that I would be particularly interested in advancing.

I am an advocate for having increased means of testing for a person's ability and responsibility in driving. Driving is a privilege and if a young person by their behavior, whether it be in the school system or interaction with the law or other things in the community, that that young person is demonstrating a lack of responsibility, then that should bring their privilege to drive into question. But that is based on an individual's own choices that they make in being responsible or irresponsible.

What I also have found in my experience again is that over the years as an MLA I have had many elderly people who have approached me where their licences have been brought into question because of health, failing faculties in being able to drive, and I have worked with them and the department to provide for restricted licences. A very common one in the Beausejour area is restricted to driving within so many kilometres of Beausejour because quite frankly they are not capable at that age or the condition in their health to be able to drive in downtown traffic. So their licences were restricted to within so many kilometres of Beausejour which met all their needs. Sometimes they were restricted by time of day; they could not drive after dark because of eyesight issues.

So if an individual is being irresponsible, does not have the responsibility to have the privilege of driving or is not able because of physical restrictions or their own abilities to drive, then, yes, one should restrict and deal with that individual. But to do a blanket age-related graduation, which tends to be, as it was explained to me, a part of receiving graduation licences, the question is, do you also do that in the latter part of life? That is the argument that young people would make to us as legislators. If you are restricting me from driving after dark because I am 16 or 17, why are you letting that 70- or 75- or 80-year-old driver who drives at 50, 60 or 70 kilometers an hour on a two-lane divided highway with a 100-kilometre speed limit, why are you not restricting them at night, too?

That is a fair question we would have to answer as legislators. So I think we are far better to look at other ways of ensuring that we are looking at people's ability and their degree of responsibility in driving to provide for our restrictions on their privilege of driving as opposed to these blanket graduations.

* (1720)

I get another issue is the physical ability–I think a former minister brought this for discussion with colleagues–and the restrictions on licences where you are handling big trucks and all of those kinds of things. Obviously, someone has to demonstrate the skill to be able to handle increasingly large trucks, et cetera. If they do not have the skill at whatever age, they should not have a licence. But I would not want to say to someone who is maybe 19 and very physically able and very responsible that they cannot be driving a large rig when they have demonstrated they can, they have been trained to do it and they are responsible, just simply because they are 19. I think we would have real difficulty with that, so that is where I am coming from as a new minister.

Things may change. It may prove to be a very worthwhile exercise, but at this point in time I think all these other issues, these other questions, have to be considered in making the decision. Today I certainly would not be necessarily advocating for that type of age-related graduated licences at this time.

Mr. Jennissen: It is a fact, though, Mr. Minister, that 27 American jurisdictions and six Canadian have implemented graduated licences or some form thereof, and I do know that in Europe in order to get a driver's licence, particularly in the Netherlands—I pointed this out before to previous ministers—a lot more training is required, but then the road volumes are heavier, maybe the speeds are faster, I am not sure. Certainly, the population appears much more congested. As a matter of fact, I do not like driving on their roads. It just seems like a traffic jam all the time, so maybe people need more training.

As the minister had mentioned, it is a fact that young males between 16 and 19 have a higher rate of accidents and fatal accidents than others, and some of those graduated licensing systems, such as Ontario where these people, I believe, in the first year that they have a licence they cannot drive at night and are restricted to certain roads, I believe, and gradually move up to full licences as they become more proficient, seem to make sense. I know it is politically unsexy. Certainly, young people would not like it. I understand where the minister is coming from, but, still, it may be something we are going to have to look at very seriously and very carefully in the near future, I would suggest.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I never dismiss any of these things out of hand. It is just that I have some difficulty, as I have said, given the logic behind it and the reason behind it. Again, representing a rural constituency with large areas of distance, there are some very practical matters, particularly in a part of the world where around the winter solstice it gets dark at 4:30 at night, and the member represents a northern constituency with large distances and low-volume roads.

All of these things come into play, because when we make those rules, how do they affect people in their real lives? Again, I can see many circumstances where the use of that graduation would not necessarily result in the kinds of purposes for which it was intended or the results that were intended. It would give me great concern, particularly when you are restricting on the basis of time of day in a province where in the winter it gets dark very early. I mean, you basically say that that person cannot use their vehicle after school, after supper, which is the time many people operate.

One of my colleagues who supports this personally and raised it saw it as a vehicle of keeping young people out of their cars at night. Well, we know that many young people—not many, some young people abuse that privilege. They drink, they speed, they do other things, but there are people of other ages who do that as well. If I think back to some of the fatal traffic accidents in my district over the last 10 years, if I look back to some of the really tragic and fatal automobile accidents in my part of the world the last number of years–I am thinking about one in the Garson area where a mother was killed coming home from work. I am thinking of one, a very celebrated, or I should say publicized one, not celebrated, certainly the result of the work in trying to advance stricter drunk driving laws by the federal government–but the case out of Pinawa. The perpetrators were all older people who had been drinking very heavily. I look at this and I am saying is this really the route to go? Just because others have adopted it does not necessarily mean that it is successful and the way to go.

I must say, too, there are many U.S. states that have the drinking laws at 19, for example, and I remember in my days in high school this issue coming up during the 1977 provincial general election. Being a young person, I remember being very offended saying I am 18 years old; you have made me a citizen; you allow me now to cast a ballot and to vote; I can serve in the armed forces; I am responsible for paying taxes. Yes, judge me on my ability to drive. If I do not have the ability or the responsibility, that I have done things in my life that show I am not responsible enough yet to drive, yes, restrict me, but if I am doing all the things I am supposed to do and doing them well and developing the skill set—and again it comes back to issues of training, et cetera—then you are just picking on me because of my age, that I cannot do this?

Then what about that individual there who is 65 or 70 or 75 and is driving at 60 kilometres an hour on a 100-kilometre road, and everyone is out pulling to pass them? What are you doing about that person? Are you going to say everybody who is 65 needs now to be graduated too and we are going to slowly restrict by age what people are able to do? So it really boils down to: are you going to treat people on their individual skills and responsibility, or are you going to treat them as a class based on age?

That is one of the fundamental difficulties I have with this particular issue. I would agree wholeheartedly with the member about the need to ensure there is proper training. There are ways perhaps to advance that, but I think that we should be allowing people to advance based on their skill set, not particularly their age.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I am very disappointed in the minister's remarks. He is talking about the arbitrariness of the age, yet that is exactly what we do with the driver's licence system. When they are 16, that is an arbitrary figure. So how can he argue about the arbitrariness of graduatedness when we, in fact, do that now in our system?

You know, 15, if you are in driver's ed in high school, you have that system now. I believe in research-based decision making. It is not because of their age, it is because of the research that shows accident statistics. I have heard from members on that side of the House that it is a lot easier in opposition to be everybody's best friend, but when you are in government you have to do what is right sometimes and what is not popular. If the research shows that there is a higher number of accidents at a certain age and a number of jurisdictions have shown lives saved, I think it is a disappointment that this minister would not be sending a message throughout his department to actively search out and justify it. The political consideration should be the last consideration.

As a police officer, I have gone to many accident scenes with young people, and I have had to make notifications of sudden deaths. So I take this matter very seriously. Graduated licences have shown in many jurisdictions a decrease in the number of fatal accidents in that age group. That is why we are asking those people at those ages to have a limitation put on their privilege to drive on Manitoba's highways.

I think there have been court challenges under the Charter to these provisions, and the courts have upheld the regulatory power of provinces to restrict it, because driving is not a right under the Charter, it is a privilege. To put restriction on that privilege based on research is reasonable, and, I would go further, is a duty of the government to allow this privilege to those that can drive.

If the statistics show a certain age group, a certain group have a higher accident rate, then the minister should be doing it. To say that my own personal opinions are this way, not necessarily my department, I think the minister knows that his personal opinion is going to have an effect on the entire department. I do not know what research is done there, but I am very disappointed in the minister's comments today.

* (1730)

Mr. Praznik: I appreciate the member's comment, but let us look at some of the statistics that the member talks about. What I am always leery about is when we see these things catch on as the answer to a problem, and everyone says, if we do this, we have solved the problem. You know, 27 jurisdictions are now doing it so it has to be the answer.

Well, let us examine that a little more. My department puts some of the information out. There is no doubt that male drivers in their early years are more involved with collisions than other categories. It is part of developing the experience of driving. Keeping them off the road is not going to give them experience necessarily. But, if you look at where we have drivers suspended and you look at the age group, yes, certainly the number of suspensions in the 16-to-19 are actually not that high. People are driving and have not accumulated long records yet. Where it really takes off is in the 20-to-24 bracket, but it stays very high for males in the 25-to-34 and 35-to-44-year-old bracket. So if we want to do research, again, what are we talking about? Among males 25 to 34, per every 100 drivers, there are seven suspended; between 35 and 44, it is 5.6. So when we are talking about the data, if we really want to be effective, does that mean we put a graduated licence that males between 20 and 44 cannot drive at night when they are more likely to drink? You know, this is the trouble we get in when we start trying to make rules based on classifications of people based on some criteria like age.

These drivers are dangerous. They are driving while suspended or they are suspended. They have done things that are dangerous. We have to be dealing with them. If we are talking about improving the ability of our young drivers, then catching young drivers, the first sign of anything this driver does not have the ability to drive or is not responsible in their life. I have even been personally an advocate of saying to our school system, if you have a young person who is misbehaving in school and not being responsible in their educational life, that is reflected in their right or their privilege of driving or could be or should be.

So if we are talking about looking at how individuals act or are responsible or not responsible in their skills and dealing with that individual, yes, I am fully supportive of that. Yes, we probably have to do more, but when we just look at classes of people based on age, how do we divide it? How do we justify saying you cannot drive at night or on weekends or whatever when you are 17 or 18 and you live in a rural community and that is part of getting to a job after school or that is working on a farm situation? What do we say to the young person who is 17, who has got their driver's licence and they are helping their father at harvest time and they have to drive the grain truck home? They cannot?

They have not had a problem. They have been responsible in the things they do, but because we are treating you as a classification of people, you cannot drive that truck after dark until you are 20, but it is okay if you are a male 25 to 34, because seven out of 100 get suspended for drinking or other offences on the road, it is okay, you can drive. I mean, this is the trouble when you look at classes of people by age. You create a whole bunch of other problems.

You know, in my part of the country, there are many circumstances where young people behave responsibly and drive at an early age and need to as part of their operation and do drive responsibly. Do I want to go them and say, no, for the greater good, we are going to restrict your right to drive, your privilege of driving? They will say, well, what did I do? Well, you just happen to be born a male and you just happen to be between this age group. It is nothing that you are doing or not doing in your driving or the responsibility of your life, but we have to do it because you are part of that category.

I am a very strong advocate of education for drivers, of ensuring that they are continually having opportunity, that we are testing and ensuring that they have the skills and they have the opportunity to develop skills with qualified instructors. That is why we are big supporters of Autopac's program and young drivers and Young Drivers of Canada and other things to be able to encourage that, but to take the classifications and just pick on one group of people when we certainly know, by way of suspension, that males who are older than what we would do for graduated are the highest percentage of suspended drivers. Are we going to deal with that in the same course?

Are we going to, at the other end of life, turn around and say, and I say this to the member, is he an advocate to say that when all drivers reach 70 years of age or 65 years of age, they cannot drive at night or they cannot drive in downtown and do the same kind of blanket graduation at that end, rather based on their abilities and skills?

I do not think we differ in our objectives. I do not think we differ in our concerns. I think we only differ in our means to achieve them.

Mr. Kowalski: . . . lawyer role and debating role and adversarial role, and now we are in a debate because, in fact, we arbitrarily decide at the age of 16 you are eligible to even apply, so that is an arbitrary decision. And to use suspensions as a statistic that is going to show us is not a very good statistic, because people are suspended for a number of reasons, everything from nonpayment of fines to a number of tickets. But the statistics, if you go to the Insurance Bureau, are accidents, who is having the accidents, not who is suspended. And if you look at the fatal accidents, the injury claim accidents, you will find it is the young, inexperienced driver. The suspensions mean nothing. There may be a cause and effect or there may not. That is for researchers.

So my question for the minister is: does his department work with the insurance bureaus of Canada and use their research for his decision making in his department? Just to make that clear, I will say the question is does the minister work, does his department work with insurance bureaus, automobile insurance and insurance bureaus of Canada, the research that they do, because they invest money, and does he have research that they meld the two and use that research to do decision making based on research and not political will?

Mr. Praznik: Obviously, we collect data ourselves through our system. We also exchange data with MPIC who is the automobile insurer in the province. We access other forms of data, but a lot of the work that we are doing now is trying to have earlier intervention and looking for means of identifying drivers, young drivers, drivers of any age, particularly young drivers, who are exhibiting signs that there is a difficulty here, and as part of our structure getting them into the kind of training courses and programs that are going to deal with the problem. Just saying in a blanket fashion you cannot drive after a certain time, how are you going to get experience to do that? Or you cannot drive but with an adult, how does one set this up and make it work? That is why we do have the need, I think, to be dealing directly with problems that are there with individuals as opposed to these blanket kinds of results.

Again, those who advocate graduated licences I notice tend to advocate them for the young, and I have yet to see them being advocated for the upper age group where we have many, many issues with older drivers. I think in fairness if you are going to do a blanket set of restrictions on the basis of age you have to do it at both ends, because, quite frankly, young people will say to us why are you not, and we have to have an answer for that.

* (1740)

The other point that I make about 16, yes, we do pick an arbitrary age in which to make people eligible to apply for a licence, eligible to apply, and we judge them on that basis. Not all life is perfect. We allow people to vote at 18 because we picked that date, but the question is once you have sort of established that date, how do you then deal with people and their skill sets?

The member asked for my thoughts on it. These are my thoughts at the current time. I may be proven to be wrong. There might be some great information that comes forward. This is a matter that is in somewhat flux, but today these are problems that would have to be dealt with and they would have to be discussed and we would have to have answers to if we were to bring about that type of legislative change.

An Honourable Member: You are wrong.

Mr. Praznik: We will agree to disagree.

Mr. Jennissen: Talking to MPIC, I would like to bring up one issue that is of some concern in northern Manitoba, and that is a number of constituents have contacted me, two in particular. One person who was travelling on 391, this was in 1996, hit some black ice, skidded the van off the road, and the van rolled or whatever, was damaged, and her demerits and licence next year cost her $265.

The other person was in '97, was basically forced to travel from Lynn Lake to Thompson because she had a medical appointment. Again, glare ice, drove to the best of her ability, but again slid off the road, damaged the vehicle. There are quite a number of cases like that. Whenever people involved in these kinds of accidents appeal, the answer comes back: the condition of the road at the time of the accident is not considered a valid defence for an accident. In other words, you must drive with due care and attention regardless of the condition of the road, but 391 is so notorious, should we not take into account some of those roads and not use the blanket defence that we cannot do that? I know it is difficult to do, but 391 in particular, sometimes it is just undrivable, and yet people have to be on that road.

Should they be penalized the same as if they were in a different part of the province where those roads would be much better maintained? Why should only northerners pay that penalty?

Mr. Praznik: First of all, just by way of logistics, we collect that demerit or that charge for MPI through the driver's licence process, so those additional charges are those of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation and are collected by us, as opposed to being ones levied by us.

One of the fundamental rules of driving, and I have to tell the member I have had a few accidents in my day, and I would like in my mind to believe that the condition of the road was very much a part, and probably was, but as I was reminded and say to the member today, one of the prime responsibilities is to be driving appropriately for the conditions of the road. We are all reminded of that, that if the conditions warrant a certain speed, that is the speed we should be using, and we should be mindful of it. Is that always practical or possible to do? From my own experience, our own driving habits always tell us we can drive a little faster, should drive a little faster, and that is when usually we get into trouble. So I appreciate the concern of your constituents.

I understand the condition of that particular road makes it very difficult and that there are other options there, but the fundamental principle that applies is that if people do drive taking into account the condition of the road, and sometimes that may be they should not be on it at all, then in fact I have no other offer of an answer to the member. Those people were driving under conditions that made it very difficult to drive and perhaps should not have been on the road that day and changed medical appointments. Is that easy to do? No, but we have all had days when we have to be somewhere and the roads have been terribly icy, or we have had a storm and we have had to make the decision do we go on the road or not. Sometimes when we have decided to go on the road, we have ended up in the ditch and in more trouble and wished we had stayed at home. I know every time I have made the decision to stay at home, my day has always been happier and more enjoyable. Do people have an easy option there? Very difficult, but in a province like ours, with the climate that we have, particularly in the winter season, these are very difficult choices. I cannot offer any relief to those financial charges to the member, but I am certainly sympathetic and empathetic because I have been there as well.

Mr. Jennissen: In the case of the one constituent, and I am sure she does not mind me using her name, her name is Sherron Loewen from Lynn Lake, because she actually wrote up this incident. I think it was even published in the newspaper. There is what I would consider a mitigating factor, though. This person had a medical appointment in Thompson, had to go to Thompson. If she were in Winnipeg, she could have called a cab, could have gone by bus, could have possibly walked, could have rescheduled that appointment. Because of the way our health system operates in northern Manitoba and the regionalization, she had to go to Thompson and that is roughly 300-and-some kilometres away on an extremely icy road. She had no choice. She left early. She drove as slowly as she could, but those roads are sometimes unsafe at any speed. She felt, and I think rightly so, why should she be penalized for something she could not really do anything about? Other people, yes, they may have had options. She did not have an option. Rescheduling that medical appointment might mean she would never get it the following year.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, first of all, with respect to asphalt accidents, it is MPI as the insurer who makes the decisions. The case the member is making should be argued with MPI in another section of Estimates, but there is a principle and the member said it. The road may not be safe under any circumstances if it is icy. So we know that for whatever reason, whether it is because a relative is dying, because we have a medical appointment, because we need groceries, because we have a child to pick up somewhere, for whatever reason, we have a job to go to where a boss is going to be angry at us, we take the risk.

Our roads in this province on many occasions in a bad winter are not safe because they are covered in ice or in a blizzard, visibility, other issues. The first principle is if you are going to go on a road, you have to judge the condition of that road. If it is not safe to be on, you should not be on it. I mean, I would like to say we live in a perfect world where there will always be 100 percent of the time the transportation opportunities for somebody to go where they have to go, but that is not the case. That would be unrealistic.

There have been times when I have been home in the last number of years and got caught in a blizzard and could not make it in until the plow went through. I mean, just physically my car would not go through that snow. I had no option to go anywhere. That is the day, I must admit, when you live in the country that I do, you like to take the roast of beef out of the freezer and have a sip of something a little stronger than water and enjoy the day, because you really, quite frankly, are not going anywhere. If you had some critical appointment, you are just not going to get there that day and there is nothing you can do about it.

Now, you know, the member made the comment about Winnipeg. There are days in this city of Winnipeg that I have been caught. I remember the great blizzard of 1986. I remember the blizzard in the spring of 1997 that added to our flood difficulties. In both of those cases, it was virtually impossible to go anywhere you could not go on foot. I remember, in 1986, having been in for a particular convention and renting a room at the Westin Hotel and being caught there for two days. Nothing moved. I remember friends who had attended a banquet at the Westin, they were not going anywhere. They came out of the banquet, that snow had piled up, they could not even get their cars out of the parkade. In one particular case, the woman was very close to giving birth and had to be taken to the St. Boniface Hospital on a snowmobile.

So in our kind of climate there will be times, and I appreciate the odds are they will happen more in the North and that there are less opportunities in some communities. Having said that, when people do take the risk, for whatever reason, of going onto a road when it is safe or exceeding speed limits when it is unsafe to do so and they have an accident, that is part of MPI's judgment call and responsibility has to be borne for it.

* (1750)

Do any of us like it when it happens? Absolutely not, but when you start examining and understanding the principle behind it, I do not know any other way to do it, quite frankly. Just logically in this discussion, how else would you manage that? Because there will always be times when we have something very important to go to and weather conditions will not allow us to do it. I know it does not even have to be the winter and ice. It can be one, big, heavy rainstorm on the highway. I have been caught in many of those and you always have that judgment call, do I keep going and have someone hit me from behind, and it is judgment call you make. So you try to minimize risk. You put on the blinking lights and you continue to edge forward, if you think you have some degree of better visibility. Sometimes you cannot, you just have to stop because you have no visibility at all.

So what do you do in those circumstances? Because I would bet you 50 percent of the time people who do go out in those circumstances have what would be, in your mind and mine, a very legitimate reason for wanting to be somewhere, but they have put themselves into a risky situation and it has not come out to their advantage. They have been involved in an accident.

You know, quite frankly, if the conditions are really bad, it is safer for that motorist and the interests of other motorists not to be on the road, even if it means cancelling appointments and other things, because not only may they lose their own life or cause themselves injury, but their presence on the road may aggravate a situation and cause others injury or death as well. I appreciate where the member is coming from on this one but, as I said, it is a difficult question and certainly more difficult by the nature of our climate.

Mr. Jennissen: Before we actually move to the Main Estimates booklet, I still have some questions before we get to line by line, even before that, but I hope to get into that tomorrow, and I really feel somewhat sorry for the minister's staff that listened to our rambling lectures, I guess they are. I am sure they are very enlightening, and I am certainly getting a lot out of it.

Before we get to that, I would like to ask one more question basically in the nature of background information on aides. Do engineering aides, a year or two ago, my memory fails me here, but I think it was two years ago, there was quite a furor about the security of their position, their tenure, whether they are seasonal or not, how they were going to be reabsorbed, moved around, whatever. Could we have a more complete picture on that, just where those people went and where those jobs are? I know one of the factors was, I think technology and computers were displacing some of those people or appeared to be. I do not know if that is entirely the case, but I would like to have a little bit of an update if possible on that.

Mr. Praznik: To give a more detailed answer to that, Mr. Tinkler, who is responsible in that area, if I could indulge the member's patience, if tomorrow or when we are next back in this place, give him an opportunity to set out in kind of writing where people went and what happened with them, I can provide that to the member.

On that vein, my memory being jogged, I would like to provide to the member a copy of the 1997 flood costs that he had requested the other day. So if that works for him that would be better than Mr. Tinkler trying to put it all together and give it to me and repeat it. If we happen to be in a committee room I might have him give it directly to the member, but we will try to put it in writing for him.

Mr. Chairperson: Are you just supplying this for the member, or are you tabling it?

Mr. Praznik: I was just supplying it to the member.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay, good. You can just give it to the member then.

Mr. Jennissen: So the minister is saying that Mr. Tinkler, then, will give me more detailed information tomorrow? Okay. Thank you very much.

Moving to the actual Estimates booklet, which I probably have lost in the process, I was wondering about French language services in the organizational chart, why that was under Highways and Transportation, and also telecommunications policy. This is Schedule 2, looking at the flow chart, the organizational chart. I had not seen that before and just cannot off the top of my head figure out why it is there.

Mr. Praznik: First of all, with respect to the telecommunications, when Manitoba Telephone System was owned by the people of Manitoba, there was a minister charged with responsibility of that act as an add-on, because telecommunications really was the telephone system. That minister handled all telecommunications issues.

With the sale of the telephone system, all that is really left in our purview is a watching brief, in essence, on telecommunications. We do not have constitutional jurisdiction for it, but we certainly have an interest in it as a provincial government. So consequently the former minister had been Minister responsible for Highways and Transportation and had been Minister responsible for MTS and, consequently, telecommunications. So in the reorganization of Cabinet, the telecommunications responsibility has stayed with the Minister of Transportation, in this case me today. There is one staff year assigned to Telecommunications–I believe there are two, three? How many do we have, three? By and large, Mr. Werthman is our advisor, and there are three staff years assigned there. Let me just check here. French Language Services has three staff years. Telecommunications, I think there is Mr. Werthman. There may be a secretary there.

We will just check the Estimates books for you, but Mr. Werthman is our policy advisor on Telecommunications. He does a fine job. He is one of the most knowledgeable people in the province on telecommunication issues, so he advises the government on telecommunications policy. He is the one who keeps the watching briefs with the Canadian Radio-Television Commission issues around telecommunications, and he reports to myself. I am the minister responsible for him. He reports to me, and I report to cabinet. So that is where we gain our telecommunications expertise because constitutionally it is not within our jurisdiction. So that particular line exists now within the Department of Highways and Transportation.

The second is French Language Services, and that has nothing to do with Highways and Transportation, other than the fact that this particular individual minister is charged with responsibility for French Language Services. I have had that responsibility, I think, since 1991, and that responsibility has come with me with each portfolio I have moved. There are three staff years there: Monsieur LaBossiere, who is our advisor in that particular area, has been in the gallery and would take questions with me on this matter. He is not there at this moment, but there are three staff years.

The monetary allotment for that particular service has come to Highways and Transportation Estimates simply because I am the minister charged with these responsibilities. Should I be moved to another portfolio and retain French Language Services, those dollars in that budget line would move as well. If you go through last year's Estimates books, I think they were part of the Ministry of Health. They used to be Energy and Mines; they used to be the Department of Labour; and now they are with Highways and Transportation.

Mr. Chair, the Telecommunications side, I believe there are two staff years assigned, Mr. Werthman and, I believe, a support staff.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Flin Flon with a short question.

Mr. Jennissen: Mr. Chair, looking at schedule 7 at the back of the Estimates book and also schedule 3, under Amortization of Capital Assets, which was in 1998-99, $2,143,900, I believe, and this year, $3,498,000, I am not clear on that. In the five-year chart, there was nothing there for the previous three years. Just in the nature of elucidation and clarifying, why is that there now?

Mr. Chairperson: We will let the minister answer that tomorrow. The hour being six o'clock, committee rise.

Call in the Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): The hour being six o'clock, this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until tomorrow (Wednesday) at 1:30 p.m.