LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Tuesday, July 5, 1994

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

PRESENTING PETITIONS

Canada Post--Unsolicited Mail

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of M. Vandale, T. Tomasz, J. Hamilton and others requesting the Legislative Assembly to request the federal minister responsible for Canada Post to consider bringing in legislation requiring all unsolicited mail and flyers use recycled materials.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS

Renewing Education--New Directions

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table for the House a document called Renewing Education: New Directions, A Blueprint for Action.

Mr. Speaker, I also have a ministerial statement.

It gives me great pleasure tor rise in the House today to present the government's plan for educational renewal, and it is entitled Renewing Education: New Directions, A Blueprint for Action. It presents the framework for change for the renewal of our education system. building a secure future for our children and our province requires a solid education. We need tod everything possible to ensure that our children are prepared to be successful in today's competitive world.

Kindergarten through senior years is the most crucial time for skill development. The education received at this level is fundamental to each student's ability to prosper both at the post-secondary level and in the workforce. Government must take the lead in renewal. Our focus will be on literacy since it is the foundation of everything that an individual requires to become a lifelong learner. Ensuring all students can read, write, thing and compute at a high level is the goal of the educational renewal process. To make this happen, we will promote greater and more effective decision making at the grassroots of education, the schools and the communities.

New Directions is a framework for action set out in six priority areas. They are essential learning, standards and evaluation, school effectiveness, parental-community involvement, distance education and technology, teacher training.

Together, parents and communities play a vital role in education. Parents, as a child's first teacher, establish the foundation for lifelong learning in their children. Many parents and community members want to be more involved in shared decision making about education programming and other school matters.

*(1335)

Actions are required to enable parents to have a more significant role as educational partners and to create ways for all parents to become involved in their children's schools and schooling. Therefore, we will require schools to establish advisory councils for school leadership comprised of parents and community members as requested by those same parents. We will require schools to include advisory councils for school leadership in developing school plans and divisional school budgets. We will enable parental choice, within limits, in selecting the public school best suited to their child's learning requirements in order to increase flexibility of parental choice within the public school system. We will state fundamental rights and expectations of parents related to their individual children. We will define basic or essential education and outline the core subject areas that will be mandatory along with those subjects that will be compulsory, kindergarten to Senior 4.

When choices are being offered by the school, the local community will be involved. Within all subjects, the required foundation skill areas will be literacy and communication, problem solving, human relations, technology. We will also enhance educational standards and evaluation to ensure that all students in Manitoba can read, write, think and compute at a high level. Standards of student achievement will be developed in relations to what students need to know and be able to do at the end of Grade 3, Grade 6, Senior 1, Senior 4.

We will move in a direction which sees effective learning environments established uniformly and consistently in early, middle and senior schools throughout Manitoba. To do so requires us to acknowledge that schools are the most important organizational unit in the education system. Principals play a key role in all effective schools. Schools must be responsible and accountable to parents, the community and the ministry.

Consequently, we will designate principals as the primary instructional leaders in schools and state their fundamental responsibilities and roles. We will require schools to develop and communicate yearly school plans. We will state the fundamental responsibility and roles of teachers, school boards and the minister, and we will initiate school reviews when necessary.

Technology is rapidly changing our worlds. Advances in technology and the many ways it is used occur at a continuing, escalating pace. to remain competitive in the global economy, Manitobans must be aware not only of how to use existing technology, but must also learn how to use technology in new ways, to solve old and new problems and create new opportunities.

To shape and co-ordinate this, we will proceed with technology and distance education projects which provide professional development opportunities for teachers. We will establish a provincial advisory council on distance education and technology. Teachers, including principals, have a pivotal role in ensuring that students receive education and training that provides them with the knowledge and skills required to participate in and contribute to a vigorous and prosperous society.

As a result of their direct contact with students, teachers have the greatest impact on the teaching and learning that a student experiences in the classroom and in the school. It is crucial, therefore, that teachers and principals be provided with the tools required to deliver relevant educational programs to Manitoba students. it is also critical that the tools teachers and principals acquire remain relevant and current as education progresses. With these factors in mind, teacher certification in the province of Manitoba will be reviewed and reformed.

This document outlines new directions, priorities and initial actions. In the fall, we will build upon these important beginnings by defining specific time frames, policy changes, regulatory amendments and other implementation details. Much of this change will be driven by the actions of our communities and by our collective willingness to continually innovate and improve the education system for the benefit of all Manitobans.

It would be more prudent to make changes in an integrated, planned approach over several years, so that all our citizens know that by the turn of the century, our education system will truly be the best in the world. I invite all partners in education to work with me to renew education in the province of Manitoba. Together we can meet our obligation to present and future generations of Manitobans.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

*(1340)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to thank the minister for tabling his statement in the Chamber today. He has certainly used a lot of the right words in the document, but our criticism is the fact that over the last six and a half years, they have not performed any of the deeds necessary to get our education into the 21st Century.

We see these words, Mr. Speaker, as words to get this government past the next election, not to get Manitobans into the next century in terms of getting our kids ready.

The government has made three promises in education. They have promised to keep the funding level of education at the inflation rate. They have broken that promise. They have promised to provide grassroots democracy and autonomy to school boards and school divisions. They have broken that promise. They have promised in 1988 to revise the education acts of Manitoba, and they have not fulfilled that promise, so when we see a statement today in the House, we will evaluate the government's performance on its deeds, certainly not on its words.

Mr. Speaker, provinces across Canada re far ahead of this government in terms of real action at the education area. Ontario has just produced an action plan to deal with violence in schools, something we see wanting from this document.

British Columbia produced three years ago a strategy to deal with protocol dealing with kids who are involved in the law and involved in social services and involved in the education system, again, nothing we see from this government in terms of a real action plan.

Certainly, we see a total vision of curriculum available in other provinces, detailed curriculum strategies to take the provinces into the next century. We do not see that in this document. We see more consultations. We see more deliberations. We see more studies. We see more good intents. We see good words, but no deeds.

The words about parents we certainly support. We have been calling on this government to involve parents for the last six and a half years. The government's words ring hollow to us when they rolled back all the rights of the democratically elected school boards and made only one school division with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and rolled back the autonomy of the grassroots. They have no credibility because they have done nothing for grassroots, and they have done nothing to involve parents for six and a half years, as we have called for.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that education and our schools are so important for our kids and our future. It is the first place that many kids can have the opportunity--their family is the first place and their school system is the second are of contact where kids can get the opportunities in life that are so important--the training, the skills, the absolute input to move forward and be successful.

Kids need a healthy school system. They need a safe school system. There is a serious problem in our schools in terms of safety in our schools which is not addressed by this document. They need structure. They need basics. They need benchmarks, but they also need a curriculum that is articulated and a curriculum that will take our children into the 21st Century, a curriculum in a changing world that provides a board level of skills and a broad level of services to take out children into the next century.

We also need to invest in our teachers. You cannot on the one hand expect teachers to go ahead and forward with new curriculum changes and on the other hand decimate the curriculum programs. Just like distance education, they decimated the Distance Education branch and then they talk about advisory committees today on distance education. The words ring hollow to the actions of the government and the three ministers who have held that portfolio over the last six and a half years.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that there is something fundamentally wrong in our society when kids cannot get physical education and drama and music because there have been cutbacks in funding in our education system, the same week we put a cheque out for $5.3 million to the Winnipeg Jets hockey team.

How do we justify the morality of decisions that are being made by this government of cutbacks in one area and operating blank cheques in another area? That is not an education vision. That is not a fair vision for the future.

Mr. Speaker, this government has had three priorities in education. One has been to reverse the grassroots democracy of school boards which they have done through legislation. Two, they have had the vision of moving toward a two-tiered education system where certain kids who have financial abilities get better education and better opportunities than other children. The third criterion or priority this government has had is that education is a cost.

Mr. speaker, we believe the public education system is not a cost. We believe it is an essential investment and we believe that we have to really provide an action plan, a real action plan to invest in our kids so they are able to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. This government has failed to do that and we believe our kids deserve much better. Thank you very much.

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we, of course, are going to read more thoroughly as time will permit the blueprint that has been tabled for the first time here today by the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness), so I do not intend to purport to be able to go through it line by line and indicate what is positive and what is negative.

From the minister's early comments introducing this, I must say, and as the Leader of the Opposition has already indicated, certain thrusts of this blueprint look very positive indeed and long, long overdue. The reaching out to the parents and the community members in new and innovative ways in a spirit of partnership, trying to build a community effort to better serve out students and their parents in our school system, is long overdue. Around this country, increasingly jurisdictions are moving to involve parents in new and different ways and the responses are good. It is an appropriate way to move and it is something that our caucus has been outspoken on for a long time, including placing before this House various resolutions and bills to that effect.

Mr. Speaker, what is interesting about this is that it has been six and a half years since this government took office, and what is interesting, if you look at the minister's comments, he talks about specifically that all citizens will know that by the turn of the century our education system will truly be the best in the world. Coincidentally, that is about six years from now and this government has been in for six and a half years. Had they started with any idea what to do about education in this province, we would have that education system now.

Instead, in their two terms in government, what they have done is everything possible to erode and undercut quality public education in this province. The result today is that on the road, apparently, to Damascus they have had a conversion and they are going to come up with a blueprint for action, they say. Where has the action been to invest in our children? Why, for six years, has this government seen and portrayed education as a social cost rather than an investment? That is the way they have portrayed it and their actions--and this is laced with that word "action". Well, their actions in the last six years have spoken louder than the words today can get rid of. Those actions have meant that more and more people are losing faith in our public education system and moving toward independent schools. That is the wrong way to go.

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly interested to see that this talks about working together in partnerships. Where has that spirit been in the last six and a half years? Why has this government and this minister, in his short tenure in this position, done nothing but draw lines between the people in our community who have an investment in education, draw lines between teachers, trustees, government, parents and their children?

The approach of this government has been one of division, and it has been an adversarial one. Today, they are reaping the results of that attitude which is that we have a divided community. Surely, today we know more than probably at any time in our history as a province that they key to successful government is not just understanding that we need to change but managing change, and you cannot manage change when you divide people.

*(1350)

That is what the government has done for six and a half years. Now they talk. Now they talk, when they will not have to implement this in the next--they are talking about, in the fall we will come forward with time frames; in the fall we will come forward with these things. Maybe we will have a good education system by the turn of the century. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough.

In conclusion, we will, as I have said, study each and every recommendation that is put forward in this blueprint. What I look for from this minister to do and, believe me, because of the last six and a half years it is certainly not too late for him to turn the page and perhaps--perhaps--that is what he is saying in this ministerial statement. We will look forward to him turning and building bridges, but it is going to take not just a change in policy but a change in attitude. Thank you.

* * *

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, on behalf of the Manitoba Round Table on the Environment and Economy, the "What You Told Us" document on energy.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill 225--The Public Schools Amendment Act (2)

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether you would petition the House for unanimous consent to introduce Bill 225, The Public Schools Amendment Act, at this time, a private members' bill.

Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to allow the honourable member of Emerson to introduce Bill 225, a private members' bill, at this time?

Point of Order

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, it was brought to our attention last night that the member was wanting to introduce a bill.

I think it should be noted that we are doing it on leave for first reading so that we can at least hear where the government, particularly the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Manness), is coming from on this particular bill, because it is somewhat, potentially, a very controversial piece of legislation.

* * *

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am simply asking a question now. Is there leave to allow the honourable member for Emerson to introduce Bill 225 for first reading? Leave? [agreed]

Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, this bill--

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member, kindly move your bill first, sir and then you will have an opportunity to tell us the purport of the bill.

Mr. Penner: I move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), (by leave) that Bill 225, The Public Schools Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques), be now introduced for first reading and read a first time.

Motion presented.

*(1355)

Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, my comments will not be very long. I have been asked continually by people across this province why it is necessary for parents to petition annually school divisions to allow for religious exercises and/or prayer to be held in schools, and the annual requirement is what the concern has been.

This bill will negate the provision for annual petition requirements and include in the bill a provision that will allow the parents to sign a petition and/or sign a document indicating that their child would be allowed to, or not allowed to, participate in religious exercise and/or prayer in school.

Some of us happen to think that no matter what religious denomination we are from or what part of society we are from, children should have the same rights as adults do in public participation in either religious exercises and/or prayer, specifically prayer in school.

Whether we as a society congregate and say prayers of thanks, and we do as a society, or whether we ask for guidance, as we do in this Chamber virtually daily, it is our right as human beings and as a society to jointly do that. This bill simply would indicate that the parents have the right to indicate when their children enter school to allow them to do this over a period of time.

Motion agreed to.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us this afternoon His Excellency Noboru Nakahira, the Ambassador of Japan to Canada.

On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Education System

Violence Prevention Programs

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.

After six and a half years and three Ministers of Education, we have a document here today. We have noted the three promises the government has broken in terms of education over the last six and a half years.

Mr. Speaker, a concern we have had that we feel is neglected in the statement from the government is the whole issue of violence in our schoolrooms and the whole issue of safety of our students and teachers in the classroom. It is certainly an issue that has developed more and more with the parents we are listening to, with the teachers we are listing to, the trustees and students.

Obviously, the funding reductions have put greater pressure on the teacher-pupil ratio. Incident reports indicate an increase of some 43 percent in the number of weapons-related suspensions in the Winnipeg School Division, and 47 percent of the teachers in the Manitoba Teachers' Society report increased physical abuse situations in the classroom in the '93-93 school year.

I would ask the Premier, why is there no specific action plan on dealing with a safe school environment, which is certainly a priority of the parents who we are listening to across Manitoba?

*(1400)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the issue of youth violence and violence in the schools is one that obviously is of great concern to all of us.

I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that he throws in gratuitous comments and remarks indiscriminately, such as alluding to the fact that this has something to do with the pupil-teacher ratio.

The pupil-teacher ratio in Manitoba is one of the lowest, if not the lowest in the entire country--

An Honourable Member: It used to be.

Mr. Filmon: Is, is, is.

So he has no solutions. He just has a lot of problems that he throws on the table.

Our Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) got together people from a wide cross section of the community, teachers, parents, students themselves, people from Corrections, counselling people, all sorts of people throughout the community, Justice people, to work on solutions. They put forward solutions, many of which are now being implemented.

We have always held ourselves pen to potential solutions to be brought forward. [interjection] Mr. Speaker, we have always put ourselves forward to solutions put forward by those who want to do that, in a positive way, not just in a way of bringing it forward for political sake.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) has met with the stakeholders consistently over the last six months to listen to their concerns, their ideas and their proposals on how to solve education.

Mr. Speaker, there is a difficultly, and we will be open about it. The difficulty is that there are competing interests. I know from having met with the Manitoba Teachers' Society executive four years in a row that the only topic they consistently wanted to talk about was the amount of money that was put into teachers' salaries--the only topic.

They did not want to talk about violence in the schools. They did not want to talk about all of these educational issues. That is a difficulty we are going to have to come to grips with. That is why this minister is putting forth a constructive proposal, a proposal that involves all people from the community, to try and solve problems, not try and make cheap politics out of them, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Doer: I cannot count how many gratuitous comments were in the Premier's response, Mr. Speaker.

The government has failed to deal with the whole issue of violence in the schoolrooms. Talking to teachers, parents, pupils, it is a major concern. To have us now referred to the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), who was the former Minister of Education who did nothing on the protocol in Education, you will excuse us if we are asking the Premier for some action and not for words.

Mr. Speaker, the government, the former Minister of Education, had a proposal from the school trustees, the school teachers, the principals, the superintendents across Manitoba, calling for an absolute protocol to deal with cross government co-ordination to deal with problem children in our school system who are also in contact with the health system, the social services system and other systems. The government has promised us technical bureaucratic committees, but has promised no action in the community.

When can we expect from the Premier, who has had three Ministers of Education, a specific action plan and protocol plan that is in the communities and in the community schools on behalf of our kids in those communities?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, when we consult with the stakeholders, with the parents, with the various people who have an interest in education, we get criticized because we are not taking action. When we take action, we get criticized by the Leader of the Opposition for not consulting.

We have done both. We have listened, we have consulted, and the minister is putting forth some concrete proposals that will indeed improve the ability of our schools to function and will involve parents in the process to a greater extent than they have ever been involved before

Parental Involvement

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): We have been calling for greater parental involvement in the education system for the last six years [interjection] There are a lot of former Ministers of Education now saying a lot of things across the way, Mr. Speaker, who did nothing when they were in office.

In 1990, the Premier promised--we believe that some degree of local autonomy is important to school boards in dealing with expenditures of education funds, leaving them to make the decisions locally and make them accountable to the local taxpayers and the local parents. consultation is critical in ensuring this best education system with the local school boards.

Mr. Speaker, why should we believe the Premier today when he talks about involving grassroots parents when he broke his promise to allow for locally elected people in the school divisions to make the decisions back in the pre-election period in 1990? His word was not good then. Why is it good now?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, all of the decisions that are the responsibility of local school boards have been made by local school boards.

I will not apologize to the Leader of the Opposition or to anyone for having put in place legislation that limited the amount of increase of taxes that they could put on the ratepayers of Manitoba. If he counts that as unwarranted interference, he is out of touch with the people of Manitoba.

Home Care Program

Drug Policy

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, throughout the government's so-called health reform, the government has said that patient care would not be impacted negatively by their changes, yet we see line-ups getting longer, patients complaining in hospitals, nurses laid off, home care cut back and more cuts coming down the road.

Can the minister explain--and we have government documents that indicate it--why he might be placing home care clients in jeopardy by invoking a new policy whereby home care attendants now administer drugs to patients, rather than nurses who used to administer the drugs?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, over the last number of months, there have been significant developments in the whole area of home care and also in the whole are of the responsibilities and roles of members of the nursing profession in which we take great pleasure.

I am sure that the 18,000 or so recipients of home care in Manitoba will be pleased to know that they have an independent arbiter when it comes to disagreements between themselves and the program with regard to levels of care, with regard to the kind of care they receive.

I know from talking with representatives of the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses that the announcement made by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) at the nurses' convention with respect to nurse-managed care is something they look forward to developing with us under the leadership of Dr. Helen Glass and her committee.

So we have made significant steps forward, I suggest, in the area of home care and in the area of changes, improvements in opportunities, for members of the nursing profession.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, does one get the impression the minister is avoiding the answer?

Can the minister explain why the change in policy, why they are tinkering with home care again? We know what happens when this government tinkers with home care.

Why are they changing home care? This policy is frankly illegal, Mr. Speaker, and I will table the medical services act which indicates this policy of having home care attendants administer drugs is illegal. Why are they doing this?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, it is a pretty important allegation the honourable member makes. I will be certain to follow up and ensure, if something illegal is happening, that it be stopped, and if it is not illegal, that the honourable member withdraw his comments in that regard.

I make no apology also for putting the patient first. I wish the honourable member would explain himself once in a while when he puts his clearly defined, vest interest ahead of the interests of the patients in this province. He is going to have a lot of explaining to do in that regard.

In any event, we also have a Home Care Advisory Council, headed by Ms. Paula Keirstead, whose recommendations we look forward to hearing and whose advise we look forward to hearing as they do their work, as well.

Again, I think that clients of the Home Care program would be pleased to know that such an advisory council is in existence, and we are inviting them, clients and staff of the program, to make their views known to the advisory committee.

*(1410)

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the only person first in this government's agenda was Connie Curran, who was first in line to take her $4 million down to the States.

My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: This policy was put in place before the minister even put in place his advisory committees. Can the minister outline whether or not he talked to the college of Physicians and Surgeons, the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses and all the other regulatory bodies before they put this policy in place, which appear to be very contradictory.

It is the government's own memo that indicates that they have put this policy in place. Why are they jeopardizing patients' health without consulting with the regulatory bodies that are supposed to be looking after patients' health, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. McCrae: I told the honourable member, Mr. Speaker, I would follow up on the one part of his question that actually was a question, and that was about the legality and the appropriateness of a particular procedure. I will follow that up, but when he wants to talk about who comes first, Connie Curran always comes into his questions.

He always forgets to mention Michael Decter every time he mentions Connie Curran. Do not forget Michael Decter is the person who sat around the table with the honourable member's colleagues when they were government here in Manitoba. Then he left his $140,000-a-year deputy minister position in Ontario to head up all the Connie Curran operations in Canada.

If the honourable member has any questions about Connie Curran, he can ask Michael Decter, his friend.

Education System

Social Programs

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.

I have now had a chance to review briefly the document, leaf through it. What was interesting--[interjection] Well, it did not take long. It is not much. It did not take long.

My question for the Minister of Education: What has often been said by teachers and trustees--they have told us, and I am sure they have told the minister--is that, increasingly, health programs, social services programs and other social programs which government offers are having to be offered through the schools. These things are being loaded onto the school system increasingly, and teachers and trustees are saying it is taking away from their teaching ability, because they simply do not have the resources to offer all of these programs.

That has been a constant theme in the last few years of discussions with those groups. There is not anything that I can see in this blueprint which speaks to that particular issue, and a real concern of all of those involved in the education system in this province is, what is the role of schools going to be as a community centre for the delivery of those services, and where will the resources come from to deliver those services?

What partnerships, what reaching out is the minister going to do to those various departments in his government, to those sectors of our society, as they increasingly become participants in our education system?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, the member may want to pass judgment on the length of the document, but I want to assure him that six painstaking months were put into place with tremendous consultation across the piece to arrive at the document that was tabled today, in keeping with what the members, of course, have been calling for year after year, and that is, of course, greater consultation.

I am troubled by the lack of statesmanship approach brought forward by both Leaders of the opposition, because if anybody does any reading with respect to education reform, one of the first commentaries is to stay away from the politics of blame, because, of course, the politics of blame, in reality, do not do an awful lot to help the students in the public school system today. I have tried to do that.

Mr. Speaker, the focus on the document put into place today is literacy. it is academic achievement. it is being able to comprehend and to read and to write.

the question brought forward by the Leader of the Liberal Party is no different from the question that had been put forward by his party before, the member particulary for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), who has asked the question over and over again--the protocols with respect to the departments and how it is we deal with students who are medically complex or those who are overly aggressive in the classroom.

Mr. Speaker, as I have suggested many times, that protocol with respect to departmental review of this subject is in place. I have seen a near-to-final draft on my desk as of last week. Again, we are going to try and release that this summer. That is the same answer to the same question that I have given over and over, over the course of the last two months.

Parental Choice of Schools

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education says he and his department have put six hard months into this. He will pardon us if we do not have a lot of sympathy. Maybe they should have put six hard years into this, which they have had and did not do.

My second supplementary question for the minister--and I look forward to that report--is specific to his Action No. 9, which is in the document and indicates that parents will have increased ability to enable parental choice, within limits, in selecting the public school best suited to their child's learning requirements in order to increase flexibility of parental choice.

Can he be a little more specific on that? Is he talking about across-school division boundaries? What happens to transportation costs in that regard? What impact is Mr. Norrie's commission likely to have or potentially going to have on that type of an action plan?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, before I answer the question, I feel compelled to acknowledge an awful lot of work that has been done by my predecessors in this government, who, through task force and indeed consultations, have gone throughout the education community to bring forward an awful lot of information that again, is reflected in part in this document.

Furthermore, specific to the question, the member wants to ask about the question of greater flexibility. We anticipate that, in some settings, there will be a reduction in the number of school divisions and that there will be larger districts and divisions, but within that, we sense that students and their parents should have greater access to choice, but, Mr. Speaker, that does not mean free choice.

That means, in some cases, that if there is some additional costs, particularly associated with transportation, there may be some incumbency upon the parent to recognize part of that cost. That is what we are talking about. Choice cannot always be free.

Distance Education

Advisory Council

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, one of the chapters in this, Chapter 5, is Distance Education and Technology. We had a very thorough report done by an advisory committee which was released last December, in December of 1993. This report, in its Action No. 14, calls for the establishment of a provincial advisory council on Distance Education and Technology.

Mr. Speaker, it strikes me, without obviously having details, that we have had that committee, and they produced a report which was, in effect, a blueprint and set out key goals and time frames for distance education in this province. Why are we doing this again? What is going to be the new role of this new advisory council?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, the member is not even part right.

On this, there was a task force that was in place that brought forward recommendations. One of the recommendations was that this advisory group be put into place to give recommendation to the government as to how the advent of distance education be brought forward into the future. That was put forward by the task force purely within the field of education.

What we have had happen over the course of the last two years is an incredible add-on with respect to other government services and indeed nongovernment services that all want to share the information highway. So we are trying to integrate this whole process through various ministries, but still within today's world, the advisory council with respect to education will certainly be put into place to focus purely on education.

Domestic Violence Court

Backlog

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey).

Delays in the justice system in dealing with charges of domestic violence, which are almost always against women, are of serious concern to Manitobans. On May 27, the Minister of Justice advised the House that the backlogs in the Domestic Violence Court were four and a half months, all in light of an objective of this government of a three-month backlog in that court. At the next sitting, the very next sitting on May 30, the minister said that they were actually eight and a half months. That is a difference of four months.

Now, yesterday, in an affidavit filed in the Court of Queen's Bench executed by Judge Giesbrecht of the Provincial Court, there is evidence, referencing a transcript from the court, showing that a man charged with domestic assault, September 25, 1993, will not face trial until September 21, 1994, a delay of one year, Mr. Speaker, almost to the day.

My question to the Minister is, who are Manitobans to believe as to the seriousness of the backlog, a judge under oath or this minister.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, given that the member has referenced a matter, a particular case which the judges' association is now pursuing before the courts with respect to Bill 22 and given that the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), in her role as Attorney General, is not appropriate to be dealing with that matter, I will be responding to this particular issue, because it does fall in the realm of public sector compensation.

Mr. Speaker, clearly, what we have going on with the provincial judges in Manitoba is very much a dispute with money. I say to the honourable member--

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Point of Order

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, my question was as to the backlogs in the Provincial Court, not about judges, not about their compensation.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point of order.

* * *

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, clearly, backlogs, whatever their length of time in the court, are reflective of a labour relations issue that is now going on with provincial judges, and I think the statistics of court use support that.

Youth Court

Backlogs

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My question is to the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey).

Given that the Minister of Justice has argued in this House that the backlog in the Youth Court is just five months, and given that I brought into this Chamber an example of a nine-month backlog even with no trial, and given that Judge Giesbrecht swears in her affidavit that there is a one-year backlog in that Youth Court, who are Manitobans to believe?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would reference the honourable member to yesterday's Free Press, where one Judge Ron Meyers in a particular speech indicated very clearly that because of their basic salary dispute with the provincial government, with this Legislative Assembly, they have, in fact, slowed down or are not going the extra mile to make sure that work is done.

I would just indicate to the honourable member that the number of hours that courts were sitting in March of 1994 ranged from 0.6 of an hour per day to a high of 3.6 hours in a day, and in April from 0.9 to 4.4 hours per day. Clearly--

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Point of Order

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, we are seeing a rather bizarre distortion of the rules when a minister--a minister is entitled not to answer a question, but it is rather unusual for another minister to get up and not only not answer the question but to deal with other matters.

The member asked a very specific question on court delays. I would point out that perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) might care to read Beauchesne in terms of sub judice convention, which indicates that it does not strictly apply in terms of civil cases, and not only that, Beauchesne Citation 510, which indicates: "The Speaker has pointed out 'that the House has never allowed the sub judice convention to stand in the way of its consideration of a matter vital to the public interest or to the effective operation of the House'."

I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is quire in order for our member to be asking about court delays, and it is incumbent upon the Minister of Justice to provide answers in the public interest.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, the honourable member does not have a point of order.

Beauchesne Citation 402: "The Speaker has stated, 'Of course, the Chair will allow a question to be put to a certain Minister; but it cannot insist that the Minister rather than another should answer it'."

* * *

Mr. Mackintosh: It is fascinating to see how this government deals with its gross mismanagement of the court system, Mr. Speaker.

Provincial Court

Vacancies

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, given hat, unfortunately, there are seven new judge vacancies on the court brought by this government as of last Friday and in light of the backlogs, my question to the minister is this: When did this government, now near the end of its mandate, plan to refresh the bench?--the minister's words. When does the patronage really being?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, as I have answered in this House previously, there were three vacancies and, as the members know, I have reported in this House before, there are judicial nominating committees which are already operating to deal with those three vacancies.

When I receive information from the chief judge regarding where the needs will be for other members of the judiciary to be appointed, to have the judicial nominating committees appointed, this government will be acting.

Youth Care Workers

Training Program

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Family Services will know that Manitoba is one of only two provinces in Canada that does not have a youth care worker training program in spite of the fact that the community has requested one. Red River Community College rated it No. 2 in their priorities for new programs, but it was not approved.

Given that there is an increasing need for this professional training for youth care workers, can the Minister of Family Services tell us why this program was not approved, and what her government is going to do to see that it is approved for this coming year, or next year at the very least?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the last 10 months with my responsibility as Minister of Family Services. There has to be an understanding that it takes a little while to get up to speed on the issues in the department.

We have had a three-month session. It is really nice to know that the session is coming to a close, so that we can look very proactively into the future and look at all of the issues that need to be discussed, the issues that need to be reviewed and decisions that need to be made.

So I look forward to the time between the sessions, when we can look at the issues surrounding youth workers and see what the future might hold.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, that is a very disappointing answer, given that one of the senior officials in her department endorsed such a program.

Group Homes

Closure

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Two youth group homes have been closed in recent months. Two more are going to be closed.

Can the minister tell us where these youth are supposed to go? How can she rationalize a system that has fewer spaces, instead of more spaces, to deal with troubled youths in our society.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Well, Mr. Speaker, I have indicated many times in this House what our vision is for children and for families int he province of Manitoba. That is a vision that looks at family support, family preservation and family responsibility.

We have put in place within the Department of Family Services, in this year's budget, a special family support fund of $2.5 million that will look towards keeping families together.

I know there is an issue with those who are presently within the system that we are going to have to deal with, but what we want to do is focus on the future of the children and the families in Manitoba and try to make Manitoba a better place in which to live, reduce the number of children that have to be taken into care by providing the supports right within the family for the children's sake.

Prime Motor Oils

Environmental Cleanup

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker , the people of Manitoba, especially the people of northeast Winnipeg, have had enough of hazardous waste management by Solvit and Prime Oil. I have photographs with me that show that the Lexington and Paris site has standing water and oil and unprotected hazardous waste in barrels, and an insecure area which allows access, where young people are know to be going into the site.

Mr. Speaker, this are or site for Prime Oil has had a work order mentioning it since December 1991, and I would like to ask the Minister of Environment given that he said on May 24, '94, that: "The whole are is being evaluated quite carefully to make sure we do not inadvertently overlook something", I would like to ask the minister, why was this Prime Oil site at Lexington and Paris Streets not included in the work order that I mentioned in 1991, which required a cleanup of all Prime Oil sites?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, if the member would care to share her information with me, I could get her a more detailed answer.

*(1430)

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, this minister said that he was going to get tough on this issue in May, and we are still getting phone calls asking, for the neighbours of the site, when is it going to be cleaned up.

Why, I ask the minister, has this site not been cleaned up, as the minister has been saying since 1991?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, a very extensive classification of the material and site was done to make sure that it was categorized and removed appropriately and not mixed in a way that would create additional problems to those we already had. Unless the member has new information that I am unaware of, evaluation of the original Prime Oil site has indicated that while we have a cleanup situation on our hands, we do not have an immediate and emergent problem.

The contracts--we have been seeking to have the material cleaned up and have an estimate on the cost of cleanup of the land, and that will be followed through appropriately.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, the issue is, why is this minister not aware of this contaminated site in northeast Winnipeg, when it is mentioned in the work order that was issued in 1991? What is going on in this Department of Environment, and why--

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the member has been know to bring information to this House before that was incorrect, when she reported a spill at Pine Falls that never occurred.

Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to ascertain the validity of her concerns, and we will deal with them.

New Directions Report

Implementation

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.

If you take a look on page 34 of the blueprint on education changes, it states that changes will be incremental over the next six years. Implementation of some actions will be taken immediately.

My question to the Minister of Education is, can the minister indicate to us today what actions the government plans on taking immediately, in particular for this coming September, the beginning of the school year?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): We will be beginning work on curriculum issues immediately, starting with the development of the curriculum framework K to Senior 4. Upon completion of the framework, work will begin in the K to 12 curriculum areas, core subjects, and essential curriculum learnings will now be new or revised and will be based on the framework.

Work will begin immediately to develop the Grade 3 diagnostic test, with a target for implementation for the '96-97 school year. Work will begin immediately to provide schools and parents with information about the establishment of advisory councils for school leadership. A handbook will be available this fall. We will target it for release in October.

We are working with a western consortia of provinces in the development of a common math and language arts curriculum, and we will be doing a special review of special education programs starting in September of this year.

Mr. Speaker, there are another three or four items. the member may wish me to provide them in a subsequent answer.

Student Consultations

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the minister can indicate to the House, because there are going to be some changes coming up for the September school year, what consultation there will be between now and then in terms of what the government's plans are, because the minister, in previous questions that I have asked him with respect to students and input for the students, had indicated that the students would be able to have input after the blueprint was tabled.

I am interested in knowing if the Minister of Education has anything that is going to be happening between now and September in terms of meeting with his partners and the students of the province.

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, this is the dilemma a government has, and, of course, opposition can have it both ways. Just a half an hour ago, they were screaming at us because we were consulting too much and not acting. Now they want to go back to consult.

The reality is, we did take into account some of the preliminary findings as a result of the student survey. That is why we have delayed, basically for the last week and a half, releasing the report.

The member wants to know exactly, and I can tell him specifically the emphasis. Students have called for a greater emphasis on English and language arts, more so than the members opposite. They did not even draw it forward in questions today, Mr. Speaker.

Academics and literacy never came forward today in questions, but with the students, it is a big issue, and the whole reform document is based on that fact.

Hiring Policy

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, on page 22, it recommends in terms of the yearly school plan parental and community involvement, including involvement in hiring and assigning teachers, developing the school plan and the school budget.

Is the government suggesting that local school advisory groups will be responsible for the hiring and the discipline and firing of schoolteachers? Is there, in fact, some sort of a check?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): There can only be one employer. There can only be one employing authority, and that will remain the school division, yet the guidelines that will be in place will call upon the local parent-community advisory group to have some strong influence on those decisions at the board level.

Winnipeg Airport

Upgrading Costs

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, the Winnipeg International Airport activity creates some 9,000 direct and indirect jobs and contributes over $430 million a year to the provincial GDP.

The federal government is negotiating with local business interests to turn the airport operation management over to a local airport authority under a 60-plus-year lease arrangement. Some other Canadian airports have been transferred, including Vancouver, which now charges passengers a departure fee of between $5 and $15.

My question is for the Minister of Highways and Transportation.

Since nearly 50 percent of all Winnipeg airport aircraft movements are cargo-related, has the Minister of Highways and Transportation raised the issue of fairer portioning of the local Airport Authority improvement costs, so that the travelling public will not be responsible for 100 percent of the future capital and operational costs of the local Airport Authority?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, the member full well knows that we discussed this in the Estimates process. He knows the answer. The Winnipeg Airport Authority has been put in place. It is an interim committee that is dealing with the issue.

The federal government has put the whole process on hold, even though Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Montreal have airport authorities and are competing with us and are beating us right now. If the federal Liberal government get on this way and get the new airport authorities in place with whatever new guidelines they want to have in place, get on with it, the Airport Authority can get on with the question the member is talking about.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, since there are over two million passengers a year and thousands of airline industry employees utilizing the Winnipeg International Airport, has the Minister of Highways and Transportation raised with the federal government the failure to include consumer and employee representatives on the local Airport Authority board during and after negotiations for transfer of the airport? They are not currently included on that board.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member knows that I am leaving this evening or tomorrow morning to meet with the federal minister and other provincial colleagues. Clearly, this issue will be on the table for discussion.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am glad it will be discussed.

Winnipeg Airport Authority

Transfer Agreement

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Since taxpayers have already paid for the airport operations, will the Minister of Highways and Transportation ask the federal Minister of Transport, when they meet this week, to release the complete details of any transfer agreement of the Winnipeg International Airport to the business interests?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, the Airport Authority had a public meeting approximately a month or six weeks ago, when they discussed with the community items of interest to the community. That will be an ongoing process if the Airport Authority is approved in the future. I think it will be very important to expanding the economic activity, both cargo and traveller activity, through the airport in Winnipeg if that Airport Authority can get underway.

I hope that the federal government will see the light and create the opportunity for the leaders of the community in Winnipeg to have their airport be very competitive in the opportunities of the future.

Port of Churchill

Government Commitment

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, my questions are also for the Minister of Transportation.

Repeatedly, we have raised questions during the session concerning the western grain transportation system and also the Port of Churchill. As of this morning, again, there is no grain committed to the Port of Churchill, making it appear that Churchill may get even less grain this year than the levels in the past four years.

I would like to ask the minister or the Premier (Mr. Filmon) whether or not either one has contacted the Canadian Wheat Board. If so, what commitment have they received from the Wheat Board so far this year?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, our information at this time is about 190,000 tones of grain has been committed through Churchill to South Africa. We also hear there are rumours of other potential sales.

We certainly hope that they materialize, so that we can have 400,000 or 500,000 or 600,000 tonnes of grain moving through Churchill. We certainly have written the federal Minister of Agriculture saying that the Manitoba Liberals had committed a million tonnes to go through the Port of Churchill, and we expect them to be able to achieve that objective.

Thompson Airport

Government Commitment

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, the federal government's policies on transport are causing major concerns, not only in terms of Churchill, but in terms of airports. In fact, the Minister of Transport federally is talking about a scorched-earth policy in terms of transportation, and it can affect Manitoba, including, in particular, the Thompson airport, which right now is on the chopping block when it comes to the air traffic control tower.

I would like to ask the minister, as I have done previously on this, and perhaps ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), as well, if the provincial government will take a strong stand against the devastation that would be wrought by the federal Liberal government's policies in terms of transportation.

Will they take a strong action to defend the Thompson airport, the Port of Churchill and the many other vital transportation services in Manitoba?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I can certainly assure the member for Thompson that we do take a very strong position and try to defend the interests of Manitoba on all the various issues the federal Liberal government are undertaking that will negatively impact on us.

I want to assure the member we have written the federal Minister of Transport saying that for the good of safety and for economic development in Thompson, there is strong support for maintaining that tower. I do not know what the federal decision will be. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) has also written the federal Minister of Transport on the same initiative.

We are very disappointed, because we are not getting answers to any of the letters we have sent to the federal government. I have sent some 15 since I have got into this portfolio. I have only got answers to four. As we well know, we sent a fairly strong letter on the 9th of June, and they have not even acknowledged it yet.

So if that is the way they consult with the provinces, that is not a very good way to govern, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House Business

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, in discussion amongst House leaders, we have agreed to go into Committee of Supply to continue to consider the concurrence motion in Committee of Supply.

So I would move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair.

* (1440)

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Supply‑‑Capital Supply

Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. The Committee of Supply has been considering the following resolution:

That the Committee of Supply concur in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995, which have been adopted at this session by the two sections of the Committee of Supply sitting separately and by the full committee.

Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (River Heights): Madam Chairperson, I have a question that I would like to ask of the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay). I have over the last few weeks had a number of letters from constituents with respect to the underpass on Kenaston. Some of them have been in favour; some of them have been opposed. What has been consistent through letters, however, was their desire for some kind of process that they could indicate clearly, that they could have their input into this final and ultimate decision of this construction. Will the Minister of Highways outline for us this afternoon exactly what stages of public involvement will be required in the final decisions to build the underpass?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Chair, the member puts me at some kind of a disadvantage to ask me to answer that question because it is really an Urban Affairs issue. The Minister of Urban Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) deals with the city on any matters related to the provincial government and streets and bridges inside the Perimeter. The Minister of Highways deals with those roads that, as the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) knows we have had that discussion in Estimates, are outside the Perimeter primarily. Yes, on occasion we get involved in cost sharing with the city on specific items like that portion through St. Norbert and the bridge over the La Salle and the four laning of the Brookside portion close to the Perimeter. That is the role the Minister of Highways plays.

But it is an infrastructure decision involving the three levels of government: city, province, and federal government. The relationship in terms of what to do and how to do it between the province and the city rests in the Ministry of Urban Affairs. So it does not help the member, but that is the jurisdiction of responsibilities we have in this government.

Mrs. Carstairs: Madam Chairperson, it is very clear that substantial amounts of provincial money are going into this project. In addition, during the Highways Estimates the minister indicated that his department was consulted and would be consulted when infrastructure projects specifically deal with roads and that type of project, which this certainly is. Now, the Department of Highways itself does have a series of protocols. It has public meetings, it ensures that there is an environmental impact assessment if one is warranted. Will those kinds of controls still be put into place in this particular project?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, I cannot answer much differently, other than to expand a little bit to the member. Yes, we were involved in some technical aspects, but the city engineers ultimately are responsible in this situation, and I cannot say specifically who or to what extent we were involved in any consultation process with the city engineers. It would only be in a secondary position with them.

With regard to environmental process, again you would have to ask the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) or the City of Winnipeg. We have a process with our roads that are under our jurisdiction. Yes, where an environmental license is needed we obtain it. There are several steps along the way to make a decision to get to the construction phase.

I am sorry, although it might sound like a cop‑out it is outside my responsibility and jurisdiction. We are only called in on some basic technical aspect, and in terms of whether‑‑the member wanted to ask whether I think a project is important to the overall transportation sector for Manitoba‑‑I would have to say focussing on getting traffic to and from the airport and to our trucking terminals and to our intermodal centres is very important in a transportation sense. Now how that is done, that is a broad question, involves a lot of players.

Mrs. Carstairs: Well, this is exactly the concern that many of the people writing to me have, that the Department of Highways is not going to do its normal processes that they would do in a provincial highway setting, that the City of Winnipeg does not have the same sorts of rules and regulations guaranteeing that there will be the public meetings and the environmental assessment, nor does the federal government, because it is monies that are going to be used in the City of Winnipeg. So the concern is that the whole public participation is going to fall through the cracks, that no level is going to conduct it.

Can I ask the Minister of Highways if he will take it upon himself to meet with the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) and the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) and if so possible, lay before the City of Winnipeg their concerns that public processes be put into place to guarantee that there is public participation.

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, again, I just want to remind the member we are not dealing in a provincial highway here, so we cannot institute our processes on them. I will follow up what the member suggested, that between Urban Affairs and Environment and Highways we should look at the issue. It is probably fair to say that there might be something falling through the cracks here, and we will discuss it and look at how the process will be handled from here on.

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Chair, leading off with the Minister of Highways, I would just like to refer back to Estimates what was discussed during Estimates with regard to Riverton Boat Works. I have read through Hansard and also had an opportunity to meet with the proponents, with Mr. Thorsteinson and his family, with regard to the Hansard and the documentation. Mr. Thorsteinson has indicated that he would certainly appreciate meeting with the previous minister. He also asked me to pass on his comments to the previous Minister of Highways who did what he could to assist Mr. Thorsteinson, and they are very, very grateful for that.

However, this is an issue that has been longstanding. The previous minister who is well aware of it, and my colleague who I thank for bringing this matter up to the now‑Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay), Mr. Thorsteinson would in fact like to discuss the different possibilities, and after reading Hansard, that there may be. We do want to get the federal people to the table and that has been the difficulty. The minister may not be aware of the fact that the federal member of Parliament for Portage‑Interlake has also been made aware of this. Riverton Boat Works has not received the answers that they are looking for from his office. Whether the minister is aware of that, whether there has been any correspondence from the member of Parliament for Portage‑Interlake or not, I would certainly hope there might have been; if not, I do have some correspondence that I would like to share with the minister. The now‑member of Parliament, Dr. Gerrard, had indicated throughout the pre‑election days that they were going to resolve this matter once and for all and bring it to light.

I would like us to work together on this with the minister, and I think that a meeting between the Minister of Highways and myself and the Riverton Boat Works and a member of Parliament that if we can get together and somehow look to resolve this whole matter and bring everybody to the table, put the questions and the answers together about how we can do it, I think it has been too long standing of an issue, people's lives have been altered because of this issue. I certainly feel that support from this minister and perhaps getting with the member of Parliament to enlighten him even more as to what can be done, I would appreciate comments from the minister.

* (1450)

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, I became aware of this issue through the Estimates process, and certainly the former minister, Mr. Driedger, was involved in terms of discussion and ongoing process here. What I have learned is that it is certainly a very difficult situation for Mr. Thorsteinson. I am sure the member opposite is fully aware that the province is not involved in any direct way in this circumstance. Mr. Thorsteinson had a direct contract with Public Works Canada, in other words, with the federal government, and he has made certain allegations, comments, and I am sure they are true or very close to true, that design specifications were not what they should have been. He incurred certain expenses, and when he tried to get reimbursed from the federal government, the dispute started to arise. As time went on, it would appear that Public Works Canada either stopped talking or never did talk to Mr. Thorsteinson in any constructive way about trying to resolve the circumstances that he was in with the contract that he had for building a tug.

The situation, as I know it right now, is that Mr. Thorsteinson has launched legal action against the federal government. But the member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) is saying he would like to still talk to the federal government, and, yes, I am sure that Mr. Gerrard made all kinds of promises during the election period. Now all of a sudden he is elected, and what is he doing to follow up on his promises to have it resolved? [interjection] Yes, zero. I am not aware that Mr. Gerrard has responded to us as a department directly in any sense, and it is difficult for us to get involved if the federal government will not come to the table because they are the people that have the issue with Mr. Thorsteinson and Riverton Boat Works. I am prepared to work with the member opposite to see if we can do something to bring the federal government to the table.

I do not know what all the truth and facts are here. I certainly know that Mr. Thorsteinson has been severely hurt financially because of this process, and I think it goes all the way back to 1987, if I am not mistaken, 1985. So we are talking close to 10 years now, and there has been an outstanding issue of monies that have been held back by the federal government as a result of the contract and the dispute, which is, I am sure, serious business for Mr. Thorsteinson.

So the department has, I can assure the member, tried in all its ways and means to achieve some discussion between the two parties, but the federal government, to my knowledge, at this point, have consistently and continually refused to discuss the issue at all, and whether Mr. Gerrard will become active and try to bring the two parties together, I cannot comment for him. I can only say that we will continue to do what we can from my office to get Mr. Gerrard to take some leadership with his government to resolve the issue for his constituent, but, you know, I feel almost helpless, basically, in the circumstance, and I am sure the MLA for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) also feels somewhat helpless. We have got a federal government that has dug their heels in versus a constituent who feels very frustrated in the process.

Mr. Clif Evans: Thank you for those comments, Mr. Minister. I would in closing on that topic, the minister is leaving tonight or tomorrow with respect to the ministers' meeting in Calgary, the opportunity, hopefully, may arise there to speak with the federal minister there on this topic. It would be greatly appreciated if the minister, knowing of course the schedule and the timetable that he has, could mention it and if he could agree, and I would be more than willing to do as much of the mediating between this minister, between Dr. Gerard and Mr. Thorsteinson, into getting together, at least as a start, with the four parties to see exactly what kind of a direction we can take.

I will contact the minister after he has returned from Calgary to see if he had any luck with the federal minister. I will also contact him to discuss perhaps‑‑I will try and reach Dr. Gerrard and see if we cannot get together in a common place here or wherever and discuss this with Mr. Thorsteinson.

If the matter could be resolved, not only Riverton Boat Works, but the family itself could get back up on their feet. They are turning contracts down now. They are still being sought after to do work, and they cannot do anything because of this situation.

As far as the legal action goes, and we discussed it on Saturday, they are willing to negotiate that. They are willing to negotiate as far as putting it away as long as they have some assurances, put it off to the side until we get some assurances and then we can discuss it, and if nothing comes out of it, then go from there again.

I would like to very quickly go over some of the roads and maintenance‑‑

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the member has me at a great disadvantage. My material is back in the office, and he is going to ask some very technical questions. I thought I was on in a half an hour, and I was headed out to get it. If he would like to ask questions elsewhere for two minutes while I go get the information‑‑[interjection] The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) is here to bail me out, so I will go get my material and I will be right back.

Mr. Clif Evans: Madam Chairperson, I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources, while I have the opportunity, a few questions.

I would like to actually begin with the LGD of Armstrong. They have written to the minister and have sent a resolution requesting, resolved that council request the Minister of Natural Resources to determine a route for a controlled outlet for Dennis Lake.

I realize that we had met with the minister a couple or three weeks ago‑‑I appreciate that‑‑on peliukan bass drains in Netley Creek. In previous discussions with the previous Minister of Natural Resources, we had discussed an outlet for Dennis Lake. I think where council is wanting to move on this is to determine, with the government's help, where best an outlet for Dennis Lake could be achieved through the co‑operation of water resources and the Natural Resources department and council.

The other issues and the other drainage issues in the LGD of Armstrong, of course, are important and are still important. The minister, in his discussions with the reeve, had indicated just which way they are going with this, and council is satisfied with that. The latest resolution, and it was something that was brought up again to the previous Minister of Natural Resources‑‑with a positive response, I may say. Now the question is, when all of this is going to get done and well and fixed, Dennis Lake outlet is still going to create a problem.

Has the minister discussed this part of the request with his department at all, and will he?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Chairperson, normally when the member for Interlake asks a question, I usually say no first off, and then I will come back and get around to discussing it.

He makes reference to the LGD of Armstrong and the problems that they have had, and he is correct that we met in my office a while ago. Concerns were brought forward. There are portions of the Interlake where the drainage system leaves a lot to be desired, and a particular case with the LGD of Armstrong and Dennis Lake‑‑a lot of history in many of these cases as well. I had indicated at that time to the LGD council that I personally did not feel receptive to taking the Dennis Lake flow and putting it into the Netley Creek.

The Netley Creek itself, Madam Chairperson, is a problem by itself. We are looking at a long‑range capital program to start on the Netley Creek drainage system. In fact, I am waiting with staff, but we have not had time yet to develop the longer‑term capital program in terms of how well staged some of these‑‑I went through with staff the other day. We have approximately 20 of these projects that are sort of into the mix, half done. Washow Bay area is another one. We have the Dennis Lake issue; we have the Netley Creek issue. We have a series of them throughout the province.

Councils in many cases are rightfully getting frustrated because there is not enough capital money to take and, maybe, not even to do one total project because some of them are pretty expensive, so we try and do a little bit here and a little bit there. As a result, I am not satisfied with that approach necessarily. I think councils are entitled to at least know what the general picture is.

* (1500)

Having said that, I want to say that my personal preference is, in the Dennis Lake particular case, to take that water straight east and tie it into our drain system going east towards the lake instead of going into the Netley Creek process.

I will not arbitrarily just make that decision. I think when I met with the reeve and council, I suggested we look at these options. I am prepared to define these options more specifically with the LGD of Armstrong, together with Water Resources, logistically looking at the thing from my perspective as a layman, unless my Water Resources people convince me differently. They have the same sort of feeling that I have, that we should take the Dennis Lake water east to the provincial drainage system. We have enough other systems that flow into the Netley Creek run, and those are the ones that basically affect the LGD of Armstrong as well. I personally prefer to have this split.

I am waiting for Water Resources to come forward with more specific recommendations, and I will not do that just arbitrarily. We will take and meet with the LGD of Armstrong again once we have a little bit more specific information, and we will respond to them directly by letter and carbon copy the member.

Mr. Clif Evans: Madam Chair, I want to thank the minister for that because about two and a half, three weeks ago I did go out with the reeve and some of the constituents who live in that area and who have lived there for ever and ever as they say, and that was discussed between council‑‑some of the councillors were there and a few of the constituents and the reeve and myself, and we went over that whole area. What I am hearing in the minister's idea is pretty well close to being the same as what they are saying, and I think if the minister's staff and council or the reeve could get together on that, but also bring in the constituents whose ideas basically are the ones that we are throwing about with the LGD to bring to the attention of the minister. I would certainly want to see that.

Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to give assurance to the member as well as to the LGD of Armstrong that, as this session winds down and we have a little bit more flexibility in terms of our time, you know the ministers from their offices, that it would be my intention to go out first‑hand and have a look at the situation. It is always easy to have resolutions on the desk and have people expressing wishes; I find very often that by going out and looking first‑hand you have a much better feel for it.

I want to assure the member that I will be out in that area during the course of the next few months and do a first‑hand look at it. I will not do it quietly. I will let the LGD of Armstrong know, and we can talk about it. There will be action and a course of action developed, and I will let them know what it is.

Mr. Clif Evans: I just want to offer the invitation to the minister that if he is going to be coming out to look at the drainage systems in the Interlake, I offer him the invitation of stopping in and visiting with me, and perhaps I can show him a few other dandy drains that we have in the Interlake. The invitation is always open to the minister.

An Honourable Member: Give him a tour.

Mr. Clif Evans: I will be glad to give him a tour. There is no doubt about it.

On another matter, this is on fishing. The minister received a letter June 22, or the letter was sent June 22 to the minister's office from a Henry Traverse. It is with regard to a director's authorization permit. Can the minister enlighten me on these permits? Can he indicate just what has to be done by applicants to receive such a licence?

Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the member has me a little at a disadvantage. I wonder if he could clarify the licence. He made reference to it the other day. I have been trying to follow up the correspondence in my office, which was faxed and not faxed. I did not have a copy of it yet, so if he could clarify this a little further, I am prepared to answer.

Mr. Clif Evans: Madam Chairperson, I will read the letter for the minister. It is from Henry Traverse. He is president of Goodman Landing Fisheries. His request is: your assistance in obtaining the permit declared above for the purpose of selling fish directly to the Gimli Fish Market. For your information, the four of us family members hold quotas on Lake Winnipeg, and currently there are no liens on any of our existing equipment that are provided by loans through CEDF.

Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the member is asking for my assistance; apparently, the individual is as well. I believe the individual probably knows that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is the one that issues licences to allow the sale of that. My department cannot do that, because that is under the jurisdiction of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and licences of that nature have been issued.

If there is any further difficulty with it, they should apply to FFMC; and, if there is difficulty, they can get in touch with my office, and we will pursue it further. Licences of this nature have been issued. However, I have to say the member should possibly maybe check with FFMC himself. There is a lot of history with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in terms of the marketing schemes, the rough fish, the whole issue itself.

In fact, I just sent a letter to the federal Minister responsible for Fisheries and Oceans today. I just want to tell the member that I wrote a letter to the federal minister because we have a bit of a convoluted system in terms of authority for the administration of our fisheries. It is under federal jurisdiction, and for us to implement any changes at all, we have to apply to the federal government, the federal minister. It goes through the system there. It has sometimes taken up to a year before we have a decision.

In this particular case with the licence, if the member wishes to advise them, apply directly to the marketing board; and, if there are further difficulties, they can get back in touch with me or my deputy.

Mr. Clif Evans: Madam Chairperson, in closing with this minister on that, I discussed this with Mr. Traverse yesterday. He had indicated to me that he discussed it with the director of Fisheries and nothing of that was made mention. So, when I discuss this with my constituent, I will certainly mention what you have said and indicate what you have said, and we will go to Freshwater and find out.

If I could get back to the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay), I might throw a little bit of a curve to the minister on this one. Some years ago, my honourable colleague the critic for Highways and myself had the terrific opportunity of going up to Steep Rock at the request of some constituents out there with respect to the turning lane and the curve approaching 329 to Steep Rock. Now I am not sure whether this minister‑‑or his department has made him aware of the request‑‑is aware of the correspondence or not, but it is the junction of 239 and Highway 6. Previous to the turnoff, there are some dangerous S's‑‑curves‑‑and, of course, with the development in Steep Rock, a wonderful development in that area, the traffic is increasing.

My family and I have the opportunity of going there now. We have been going up there for the last couple of years. I travel that road a lot, of course, and I find it very, very dangerous and treacherous. If the minister can enlighten me as to what his department might do on this or if the minister will get back to me on this one, I would appreciate one way or the other, or if he wants to ask further, ask me any questions.

An Honourable Member: First and foremost, how is the fishing?

Mr. Clif Evans: The fishing is absolutely excellent.

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, did the member say 329 and Highway 6?

An Honourable Member: 239.

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, 239 and Highway 6.

The member, I understand, is referring to the junction where you make a left turn or a turn to the west of Highway 6 onto 239.

An Honourable Member: Towards Steep Rock.

Mr. Findlay: Towards Steep Rock, yes. I would have to get back to the member. It could be in the program, but I would prefer to talk to staff about where it is at before I comment to him.

* (1510)

Mr. Clif Evans: Madam Chair, I did want to put it on the agenda for the minister's staff. It was on another piece of paper and I was not able to discuss it with his staff, but I definitely would appreciate an answer on that. This is since 1990‑91 that the request has been in, and it could be very, very dangerous.

I do have some questions. I have been bringing up some of the highways in my area to this government, to the previous Minister of Highways. I have done it through letter. I have done it through discussing it with him in private. I have done it through questions. I have done it through Estimates, and really not to the satisfaction of, of course, the constituents and myself. I would just like to question the minister on some of these and where it is it.

I would like to begin with Highway 234 from Highway 8 to Pine Dock. When the previous minister received the portfolio of Minister of Highways in the changes in the fall, I had indicated to the Matheson Island community and to the Pine Dock community and the community of Riverton that one of the ways that we should deal with this issue is to write to the minister requesting a meeting to get support from the different communities that are involved. Those letters and the petitions and whatnot were sent to me, and I brought them to the minister's office directly. I believe this would have been in early, early fall.

Madam Chair, I just want to enlighten the minister on 234. It is a road that was upgraded to Beaver Creek, widened and upgraded and left at that, but now the traffic on that road has increased so much over the years. The winter road service is used by that road. The people come from Bloodvein, from Island Lake, from Berens River. They use that road in the wintertime. The transfer company uses that road throughout the year. The communities are growing. They are using that continuously through the year.

There is a proposal in place that an entrepreneur is looking at building a fishing resort in the Pine Dock area. It is going to increase the traffic even more with tourism and that. Over the past three to four years the community has requested and requested to discuss this with the minister.

I understand that the response, after the minister received the letter and the petitions and whatnot, he had indicated to my office, I believe, and to the communities that there was going to be a meeting with a certain engineer. In checking with his department I was led to believe or told that there were some personal problems within that, which is fine. This is going back some months now.

Again, I received calls, the minister's office received calls just in the last three days about the treacherous condition of 234 right today and last week. The strange part about it was I received some calls on Thursday, I called his office to express the wishes of the constituents, and as I get home they are pulling a truck, a three‑quarter ton truck right up to the top, right up to the cab in mud, that they had to pull out of 234. They had to go out and get it, because that is how much it was stuck.

I know the minister hopefully has some answer for me right now on it.

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, I know the member has a lot of highways that he is concerned about. We are doing some work on some of them. The LGD of Fisher, we have certainly been meeting with them, and I think we have an agreement that is going to flow there. The one he is talking about, 234, I do not have any further comment or any other additional comment. I think I would like to talk to the member privately so we can get from him his version of where the major problems are, because we are talking a fairly long road here. We are probably talking‑‑dare I say?‑‑80 kilometres. It is a long road. I am sure before we are finished here today he is going to ask about probably another 80 or 100 kilometres of road. There may be justifiable reasons for raising all these roads.

I will give him some answers where I have information, but on this one I would prefer to talk to him privately about the conditions of the road to see if it jibes with the information I have received through the department so that we can apportion our scarce resources in a fashion that meets the greatest needs. Any MLA that comes to me on the roads, give me the road or the two roads that are the highest priority, the ones that must be done, because we cannot do four or five. There just are not enough resources to go around.

I would ask the member on this one‑‑he is saying that the traffic count is way up. We always collect traffic counts every year. I will check today. I do not have the numbers in front of me. I will check to determine whether those highway traffic counts have really gone up in reality or whether we have taken them in the wrong place. I would like the member's input on that so that we can determine where we would do some work if some work is not already being scheduled on 234. I know he has some more and we will have to determine where the greatest priorities are for those ones that are not currently on a program.

Mr. Clif Evans: Madam Chair, I will do that with the minister, but there were indications from the minister's office that there was going to be a meeting with an engineer‑‑I do not have his name in front of me‑‑to discuss it with the communities and myself, if so be it. Basically, what they are saying also is that the continued maintenance of the road is very important. They are not asking for asphalting from Highway 8 to Pine Dock. They are looking for some improvement on the road, up to some provincial standards, so this is basically it.

I will be glad to get together with the minister, but I would appreciate the minister following up with his staff as to who was supposed to be meeting. The administrator of the Pine Dock community just told me last Thursday, she has not heard a word from anybody for months. The minister says that I have a lot of roads in my constituency and that is true. I have been asking on these roads since the very first Estimates process that we were able to do after the election in 1990. I am always asking and I will continue to ask the status or the proposals for these different roads.

I would like to come back to the Minister of Highways. I know some of my colleagues have questions. I have a meeting with some constituents and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) and the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) in a few minutes, so I would just like to ask the minister just how far the proposal on 325, the new portion that has been proposed from Highway 17 west, where is that at and how soon can we see progression on that new road?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, I presume the member is talking about the proposed new extension of 325 straight easterly to Highway 17. We met with the co‑op in the area who is talking about putting a new location at the junction of 325 and 233. We have talked to him about the extension of the road and it would be about‑‑it would look to me like about 10 miles from the existing 325 all the way east to 17.

I understand in the community there was some concern that we were not going to go all the way, we would just rebuild about three miles worth, but the commitment of the department is to build all the way through from the bend in 325 straight through to Highway 17. That is the process the department is on in terms of getting the environmental licence and then proceeding to land acquisition.

So the process to rebuild that road‑‑and I believe it meets the desire of the community to do that‑‑certainly the co‑op wanted the first three miles built to their new location. Now if he is talking about a different section, you let me know.

* (1520)

Mr. Clif Evans: Madam Chairperson, I am talking about the proposal not from 233 and a couple of miles that the co‑op and other proponents are talking about, because 325 west of 233 is another matter altogether and is an issue that the R.M. of Siglunes and LGD of Grahamdale are looking at. We are talking about the proposal that has been to the minister previous and now. The minister's staff has been discussing this with Mr. Ernest Abas and Mr. Mel Ross about from Highway 17 west, connecting it to 325 there, a straight new road being built directly through.

Mr. Findlay: That is what I am talking about.

Mr. Clif Evans: Yes, but you are talking about the other side, coming the other way.

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, he is talking from 17 east. I am talking from the west side going to the same location. We are talking exactly the same portion of road. If the member had a map in front of him, he would see there is a jog in 325 straight north of Sleeve Lake, and from that point all the way to Highway 17 which I think he is talking about, we are committed. We are in a process of trying to obtain an environmental licence, and then if we obtain the environmental licence, you move to land acquisition on that new road.

An Honourable Member: . . . thought that was done already.

Mr. Findlay: No, I am telling the member that is the process we are in at this time, acquiring environmental licence, which should not be too difficult. Then we get into land acquisition for the new road. It is a road that currently does not exist. I am sure we are talking about the same stretch.

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne): I have some questions for the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger). I would like to follow up where we left off on the Land Information Centre in the Estimates process. I want to get some specific information on Remote Sensing and the Land Information Systems outlined in the appropriation.

I am interested in finding out what is the duplication, overlap or co‑operation between the work of the Linnet Graphics group and the people who are currently in the department doing what appear to be some related activities. Can the minister advise me, what is the relationship of these activities within the department to that which is conducted by Linnet Graphics?

Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I will try and do a little bit of background history here for the member. The net concept was developed I think‑‑and the reason I have a recall about basically how this thing evolved was because we did an opening yesterday in the town of Steinbach of a geographical information centre, a very positive thing, but the concept with Linnet was developed, oh, I think in the '70s. In 1986, this concept was actually developed a little further in terms of establishing a geographical information system. Other provinces have tried it at various levels and it has not been successful. They have failed.

Since '86, this thing has evolved to some degree where ultimately there was an agreement that was arrived at between Linnet and the provincial government. The provincial government is a 24‑percent shareholder in the Linnet operations. We have input in terms of how it is run, and there is some funding that is indirectly involved through the departments.

It used to be basically under I, T and T, the Information Services component with Linnet, and during the last budgetary process, the decision was made that it would be transferred to the Department of Natural Resources.

Since that has happened, we think‑‑and this is not patting the department on the back, but we have been very positive in making progress in terms of where we are going with the whole information system to the point where the individual from the Crown Lands Branch, my director, Jack Schreuder, is the one that is basically co‑ordinating the information system. By and large, why the decision of government was to move it into Natural Resources was because of the Crown land component and my department who basically have a lot of this geographical information. So since that time it has evolved in my view very positively.

We have a specific direction. We are trying to get other departments. We have a committee set up of deputies that basically are working at getting all the various departments to sort of be a player in this. There has always been a certain sensitivity in the debate over the period of time in this House about the information that basically with Linnet is going to be public information, does anybody have access to it, and that. That is a thing that has been dealt with because the information can be put into the system and it is still the control of the department. No information will be released until the department feels it is proper to release it.

This was a concern as we went into that system all the time, and departments are very possessive of their information, but basically the concept from my layman's point of view in terms of what is happening with the geographical information system is that‑‑I will just try and give an example. We have Manitoba Telephone, we have Manitoba Hydro, we have the Department of Highways, the Department of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines. Each department has accumulated their own information base, you know, geographic information, et cetera. Actually it seems as if it is duplication and the information is not available for those that need it and that is why I, like I say again, from a layman's point of view feel very enthusiastic about the approach of what we are doing with Linnet and this information system because it is now put into a general system.

The departments still have control over it, but at least it can be accessed by municipalities, by governments, by individuals, that information which is available to the general public. I am just trying to give a little bit of background because when I first got into the department and I was handed the responsibility of Linnet or the information services, I was in a jungle. I did not know what I was starting with, but I feel much more comfortable now. We have very qualified people by the name of‑‑the Director of Crown Lands, like I mentioned Jack Schreuder, and Alvin Suderman who has also been very busy with developing the information system. So when we did the opening yesterday in Steinbach, in the environmental office, everybody was very enthusiastic.

The agricultural component which also ties into this system has been opened up in Carman. We are looking at establishing a few of these information systems in the Department of Natural Resources, so the system is moving forward and the positive side is that, by and large, Linnet is out there marketing it to the general public. We have sold the information system to Saskatchewan. We have Alberta and Quebec on‑line that want to buy into our system and buy the technology. It is being marketed on the international basis, where we have big customers in the Asiatic countries that are basically looking at buying this technology and into the system. So after what has seemed a very, very long slow start, we are at the stage where progress is being made and as more acceptability of all components and departments, in terms of what we are trying to accomplish with it, I feel pretty good about it.

Ms. McCormick: Thank you to the minister for that history lesson, but I am still confused about the relationship between Linnet and, for example, Remote Sensing and Land Information Systems. These are still a department of the Natural Resources department. How does Linnet serve the Department of Environment, for example, Department of Natural Resources and the utilities you have spoken of? Does government purchase service from Linnet, or how are those relationships defined?

* (1530)

Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I certainly am not critical of the member for raising the question as to the relationship because that was one of the confusing points that I had. With us having 24 percent of the equity into Linnet, and Linnet is basically an arm of another company, it is a complicated structure. By and large the arrangement, we are on the verge of signing another agreement again, another year's agreement with Linnet as we do on a yearly basis, where we work out a working agreement between government's Economic Development committee, my department and Linnet. It is based on providing information, feeding information into the system and providing certain funding for that.

For that funding that goes into it, we get information and do not have to buy it, but Linnet basically, when they market this, we get that percentage of equity that we have. We get some of that money back. The whole purpose initially was to establish a good information system plus a big job creation factor, I think.

I will try and get the specific information as to the number of employees because I do not have my staff here, but ultimately the target is something like 200 people will be employed under the system here in Winnipeg. It is supposed to be a very beneficial program and, at the same time, have major economic benefits job‑wise as well as something that can market and get money back from elsewhere. Each department is challenged for a component within their budget, I believe, that should tie into the information system to provide that to the major control system of information, which basically is Linnet.

I do not know how further to explain the concern as to the agreement unless I basically bring forward the total agreement and that is being worked on right now.

Ms. McCormick: In preparing for the questioning in this area I did search through the Corporations branch, so I have a fairly clear understanding about Manitoba as a minority shareholder, about I.D. Systems and the other sort of principal shareholders, but what I now thank the minister for having a better sense of is the access of information that is gathered under the umbrella of Linnet is now available to Manitoba. It is almost a quid pro quo that you put information in and you get it back in a better form.

Another area though I am curious about is the direction that the department is then moving. Is it likely that some of these activities that are currently done under the auspices of the department will eventually move out of government into Linnet, or do you see that we will retain things like the land information system, the remote sensing, that government will still continue to do some of this, or will it be progressively devolved into the external corporation?

Mr. Driedger: Madam Chair, the way I see this evolving is, it is an ongoing thing that will never really stop. The realms of possibility are endless in terms of what you can feed into the system. For example, if you take the city of Winnipeg, ultimately the whole infrastructure system, their sewer, their telephone lines, hydro, everything ultimately can be there; and, for example, if somebody wants to develop a business, whatever the case may be, they can go and buy this information, a private corporation or a municipality, and get all the information they need related to ground, to water aquifers. This is what we were stressing yesterday in Steinbach when we did the opening.

Where we have a lot of interest in establishing hog operations, the individuals or the municipality can tap into this information and find out where the water aquifers are, all the information on that, the soil types in terms of developing a storage facility, and ultimately this just keeps building. Where it ends, I do not know, but there is tremendous potential in terms of this thing evolving further. I could see an ongoing role for government to continually be part of that, because we have the information base that basically is required in a lot of cases.

Ms. McCormick: You talked about a growth of employment within the Linnet system. Are there currently provincial civil servants seconded into Linnet, or is all of the staff year growth to be outside of the Civil Service?

Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, initially, there was not secondment, but I think some of the information people went to work for Linnet and are paid under their structure. At the present time, for our participation in the development of the information system with the Linnet, my director of Crown Lands is playing a very active part, as well as Mr. Suderman, so we have people who are basically working with them. So part of the contribution is in kind in terms of participating with the company.

I am not trying to oversimplify it. It is relatively complex, the kind of agreement we have, but from the average layman's approach to it, without getting into all the details, I think it is very positive. I repeat again, the potential for this thing as it evolves is just in my mind very positive and limitless in terms of what can happen there.

Ms. McCormick: Madam Chairperson, I just want to move on to a question about the Remote Sensing unit. The objective of the unit is: "To provide a Provincial Topographic Information Program in support of management of provincial natural and related resources and the carrying out of environmental assessments."

Now, for example, an activity like this, who would do it? Would it be the staff in the Remote Sensing unit who would actually perform this activity? Or would there in some way be some link back with Linnet for that?

Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I am not quite sure if I understand the question correctly. I just want to say that the information from my department, for example, resources in terms of especially my Crown Lands people, the geographic information that we have on file‑‑I mean, it is not like we are starting something new. There is information that has been developed over a long period of time, and this information, then, is basically fed in.

The system is only as good as the information that it gets, and this is where from our department being very supportive, we are feeding all the information that we basically have into it and encouraging the other departments to do the same thing so that we have a complete network.

I might just say that initially, people like maybe Hydro and Telephone were a little hesitant about whether they wanted to play a role in this, but after the announcement yesterday in Steinbach, the people from Hydro were very enthused and feel that there is a tremendous advantage that can be gained by everybody using the same information database.

As more feed into this system, and they still have control of it, much of this information, by and large, is for everybody's use. I mean, it is not something that‑‑why would Hydro not want to share much of the information that they have with Telephone, or vice versa, or with other government departments, when people need information? It is an evolving thing, by and large, but it is getting to be more positive all the time.

I do not know whether I have answered the question really in terms of everybody has to give information into there. My department gives what it can. Other departments do the same thing.

Ms. McCormick: I think we are getting closer here. What I was trying to ascertain by using the remote sensing activity as an example is how the information gathered through Natural Resources activity is then fed to Linnet for the benefit of private industry and for other government activity, so I am getting a sense or at least a better sense, that the activity which goes on within the department becomes part of the broader information base that is amassed by the Linnet system. So I am prepared to let it go at that.

I would just like to ask another couple of questions with respect to the progress of the tender package on the Manitoba Lowlands project. I am just curious if the minister can advise me of the status of the joint advisory committee and the selection of the tender for the contract for the Manitoba Lowlands.

* (1540)

Mr. Driedger: Can the member indicate, is this related to the next national park that we are looking at, the options that are there?

Madam Chairperson, I want to say to the member that initially there were three proposals that were being sort of considered. A committee was set up between the federal and provincial governments, and they ultimately reported to the provincial deputy minister of my department and the deputy minister of the federal government, who then basically, based on the report that was made, then made recommendations to myself and to the federal minister as to which areas were to be considered.

When the reference was made to the park in the Williams Lake area, which is one of the areas for consideration, at that time the group, as this information came forward through the system, felt that because the Williams Lake area specifically as part of the Thompson nickel belt that goes right through there‑‑and I want to say that by and large the nickel finds in that particular area in Williams Lake, first indications are that is higher of quality than even at Thompson. So the challenge, I guess, that government of the day faces federally and provincially is where do you basically‑‑to me it is not a competition between environment and the mining industry but people perceive it to be that. That is not the case.

Rather, anticipating the controversy that it could have gotten to be, if we had not excluded a portion of it, not all of it, but that portion which is part of the Thompson nickel belt, that we would exclude that portion of it to avoid the kind of conflict, because first of all, the federal government in establishing a national park is very sensitive that they do not get into all kinds of big rhubarbs. We are in the process of establishing the Churchill Park national park; even that is moving very slowly because of all the things that have to be dealt with.

So it was felt by everybody through the system that we should exclude that portion that has the high nickel quality in it and, at the same time, realizing that within certain areas there we have the bat caves, certain very special areas that we will be designating under the Endangered Spaces program which, you know, based on my advisers, we can take and isolate those and put them aside. So it is a matter of basically evolution to this point. I get criticized severely by some of the environmental groups that we have just caved in to the mining industry. That is not the case at all, but I think in the best interest of moving this thing forward, I think the course of action that we have taken is justifiable, at least I have a comfort level in terms of using a common sense approach to it.

Ms. McCormick: It seems to me, Mr. Minister, this is one area where we have the tremendous potential for using the geographic information system data which is gathered up in terms of laying out the technical requirements for the selection of a site.

My question was intended to elicit information on what is the status of the process for tendering the Manitoba lowlands criteria, and who is in fact in control of that process? I have a sense now that you are saying it is quite a slow process, but I was just curious about finding out from the minister if in fact that joint advisory committee has a mandate to continue, or is it now a process which is back in the control of the federal and provincial governments?

Madam Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I was not trying to play favourites here by talking with Mr. Speaker. Because he is a gentleman that basically calls the shots in this House, when he asks a question I feel compelled to sort of give him a short answer.

To the member and her question, the next step that basically is taking place after the recommendations came forward, both my provincial department and the federal Parks department have put out a tender for consultants. That process has just basically concluded and I am waiting for the recommendation to come forward in terms of the consultants that will do the next stage of the studies, basically.

So it is moving forward. I believe because the federal government was involved, we had to tender this on an international basis, and I think we even had some consultants applying from as far away as Mexico, et cetera, but I just have a preliminary indication that there is a variety of applications that came forward and a recommendation will be coming forward to me, I expect, within the next 10 days for the consultants who will then continue on in terms of doing what has to be done.

Ms. McCormick: That is what I was looking for in terms of an update of that process.

Now, just one other area, I wanted to question with respect to the status of the agreement between the Department of Natural Resources and the association of private landowners in provincial parks. Can you give me some indication as to the progress of the negotiation of an agreement with respect to these services that these people get?

Mr. Driedger: Madam Chair, the member opens a whole Pandora's box here with the kind of question, a lot of history that has basically been involved here with the private landowners and provincial parks‑‑this is what we are talking about, right?‑‑because some of these people have been living there for a long, long time before the provincial parks got established.

When I took over this department we had‑‑what happened is 10 years ago the department decided, because these people lived in provincial parks and were privy to some services, whether it was roads, garbage or certain services, that because they did not pay any taxes to any municipality because they did not belong to a municipality, they should pay certain fees for services rendered. The billing started approximately 10 years ago. At that time the majority of the people basically paid. Ultimately, some felt it was not right because they felt they were paying without having the services defined and thought it was not right to do this. Ultimately, the thing ended up in court, and then two years ago or something like that there was sort of not a clear decision by the court in terms of whether they were liable or not liable.

Ultimately The Parks Act that was brought forward by my colleague‑‑the now‑Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) brought forward The Parks Act, and under that act that we passed last year there was provision to bill and back‑bill, basically, for these services. It has been a matter of controversy with the private landowners association, with whom I have met, who basically have been meeting with my parks people to try and establish an agreement, and we have not made that much progress with the agreement. I have to tell the member though that the decision was made that this was not fair because over half of the people were paying the service fees and the other half were not.

Subsequently, after many meetings and discussions, a decision was made that we would take and everybody is going to pay. We cancelled the interest and we are going to be adjusting the fees of certain individuals, or all the individuals, based on the best records that we have for services provided, and now we are going to put the hammer down. We have cancelled the interest. In fact, where we were approximately $395,000 in arrears from all these people, we will be collecting approximately $100,000. Those that have difficulty with the fees, they can come and we will make adjustments with that, but everybody is going to pay.

Now some of the private landowners association feel that they still do not want to pay until they have an agreement, but in my discussions with the individuals they feel that they will tell us which services they feel should be entitled to do it, and somewhere along the line without being, you know, autocratic or too domineering, the decision ultimately will still be the government's as to how much they charge for what services.

* (1550)

Now, we have never had a good system in the Parks department in terms of specifically a breakdown of the services. We are trying to establish that, but in the meantime they will have to pay and we will continue to meet with them to try and see whether we can come to some agreement. Some of these individuals, you have to understand, have a pretty strong opinion that, you know, they were there, they should not really have to pay, and here comes government levying now. If you own property, I firmly believe this in principle, that everybody should pay certain fees for service of property, whether it is roads, whether it is hydro, whether it is‑‑you know, somewhere along the line you have to pay if you own property.

They do not quite necessarily see it that way. They feel that their grandfather has rights because he lived there, but that is not the reality I like. We do not expect them to necessarily pay for schools, but you have to understand that those who are living there, some of them are living there on a permanent basis. It is not just a cottage that they have on private land. They live there and then they want certain services. It is not an easy question to resolve, but I am prepared to work with them.

Ms. McCormick: I would like to ask the minister, Madam Chair, if you can give me some optimistic estimate as when you think that this agreement might be concluded.

Mr. Driedger: Well, Madam Chairperson, I will try and be as forthright as I can. This issue has been in the mix for 10 years, and they have not made much progress yet, but I do not know whether the member knows Mr. Ryback who is a pretty determined individual and the chairman of the private homeowners association. I have had occasion to meet with the cottage owners association from the Whiteshell and other associations as well. My Director of Parks, Gordon Prouse, and some of my other people within Policy have been meeting with them. I would like to think that unless things get very ugly in terms of the settlement and people paying their fees, I would like to see this resolved before we do the final proclamation of The Parks Act which we are in the process of developing.

Now that is not a definitive answer. I cannot give a definitive answer, but I have to say that I am receptive to continue to working towards resolving this and not leave it sit out there.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Chairperson, I just have a few questions here for the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Findlay). This afternoon during Question Period we asked a question on the Port of Churchill and the western grain transportation system, particularly as it relates to the Port of Churchill. My question to the minister this afternoon was whether he or the Premier contacted the Canadian Wheat Board and what commitment was received by the Wheat Board for this year with respect to grain movement through the Port of Churchill.

Now the minister indicated 190,000 tonnes of grain has been tentatively earmarked to go through the Port of Churchill. However, the minister also realizes that in order for the Port of Churchill to break even, at least 700,000 tonnes of grain is needed, and last year nearly $2 million was lost because of being unable to meet that limit.

I would like to ask the minister what plans there are by this government with respect to‑‑I know that there have been a number of letters sent to the federal minister concerning the Port of Churchill, and I want to commend the minister and also the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) for doing this on behalf of the Port of Churchill and the ongoing life of it, but I want to know what alternative plans there are with respect to ensuring that at the very least Churchill will realize the 700,000 tonnes and, quite possibly, the one million tonnes that were promised by the Manitoba Liberals in last year's federal election.

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the member maybe should ask his M.P. from Churchill what he has done to determine if there is going to be a commitment from the federal Liberal government to get more grain moving through the Port of Churchill. I confirmed to him this afternoon that our information is 190,000 tonnes going to South Africa. The Port of Churchill, Ports Canada, Canadian Wheat Board are all the complete and 100 percent responsibility of the federal Government of Canada. I have told the member on more than one occasion that the consultation or the answers to letters that we get from that government are anything less than satisfactory, very unsatisfactory.

Now the member asked, what are alternative plans? We will continue to maintain the pressure on the federal government particularly the M.P.s of Manitoba who have indicated there should be a million tonnes move through there; that is something we would support. A 190,000 is not anywhere near close to it; it is less than 20 percent. I hope that they understand that the public of Manitoba, the government of Manitoba will hold them accountable if they do not achieve the objectives that they used through the election campaign. I think the member is fully aware that the federal government has not fulfilled all its commitments; in fact, it has changed its position on many of its promises during the election. I hope this does not fall into that same category.

I think the member is fully aware that when we have a federal responsibility, the federal government must live up to it. There is no way in the world that we can financially accept the responsibility for jurisdictional activities under their jurisdiction. There is just no way we can take the offload. We all want the Port of Churchill to survive, and we certainly in the future see additional opportunities of marketing grain into Europe. The big wall that was built there by the European community over the years seems to be opening a little bit, and for certain commodities Port of Churchill certainly is a port of export that has some potential in that regard.

The future opportunities in regard to Russia, very hard to judge. It looks like they are not going to be buying any grain this year, period. These are the comments that come out of Russia; that does not bode well for Canada in terms of serving that market or any port on the eastern side of Canada or Churchill.

So, Madam Chair, I have told the member what we know at this stage. We must all maintain our pressure on the M.P.s involved, particularly the 12 Manitobans who are elected as Liberals to fulfill their promise, and I will be meeting this week with the federal Minister of Transport. We will certainly maintain our position with them. We all know that he has made some very strong comments that are not supportive for his continued commitment to transportation sector, period, in this country.

Mr. Robinson: I, too, look forward to the results of that meeting with federal minister in the next few days. One of the suggestions that I made to this minister, the Manitoba Minister of Transportation (Mr. Findlay), Madam Chairperson, is whether or not he would explore the possibility down the road, in the event that this meeting in Ottawa does not turn out in favour of the Port of Churchill, and consider an all‑party committee, being that they were all agreed in this House on the viability of the Port of Churchill.

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the member obviously believes an all‑party committee would have more impact than the government doing its lobbying with the federal minister, or either the two opposition parties doing the lobbying with the various M.P.s that they have contact with. I have seen several delegations go to Ottawa. I have not seen a lot of positive response to it. I think the most productive way to be sure that we get our message across is continue to lobby, through letters and in terms of personal discussion with the M.P.s involved, and I stress the personal contact with Elijah Harper, the M.P. for Churchill, with Lloyd Axworthy, a lead M.P. federally for the province of Manitoba. They have both made commitments to citizens of Manitoba that we must hold them accountable to.

We must communicate directly with them, and I would recommend that the MLA for Rupertsland speak to the M.P. for Churchill to be sure that he understands that we have not let up in terms of the promise. All three parties in this province are on the same wavelength on this issue, and the federal government owes it to Manitoba, western Canada, to maintain Churchill in a viable position and maintain the rail line to Churchill in a viable position for future economic opportunities for the northern parts of Manitoba, in fact, for all Manitoba.

* (1600)

Mr. Robinson: I think that I am in agreement with the minister. No doubt, I think that every effort should be made to ensure the ongoing life of the Port of Churchill, and I do believe in what he was saying, that we should make every effort, no matter what our political stripes, to try and secure the future of the Port of Churchill.

Certainly we have done our work, and being the MLA for that area, I have contacted the federal transportation minister. Like the minister, I have not received an adequate response for myself to report back to the constituents that rely on the Port of Churchill. As well, I have contacted the local member of Parliament, and local officials in Churchill have also been in touch with the member of Parliament for Churchill to express their concern on the uncertainty of the future of the Port of Churchill.

So, yes, we are as well doing what we can, Madam Chairperson, with respect to trying to assist in ensuring that the Port of Churchill will be there in the coming years.

Another question I have for the honourable minister is recently, on January 24, 1994, the producer payment panel issued a report. Has the minister expressed his opposition to the producer payment panel report which, in my opinion, contains a number of false statements concerning the Port of Churchill?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the member, did I hear him say January 24 of 1994? That was the preliminary report from the producer payment panel and they have just in the last two or three days released their final report and recommendations to the federal minister. It certainly is an item of discussion at this moment at the Ministers of Agriculture meeting which is happening here in Winnipeg. All provinces and the federal government are at the table discussing the report as it has been put in front of them. To what extent there is something different in that report relative to January, I have not had an opportunity to study the whole report. I have seen excerpts from it, but there is going to be a lot of discussion on an awful lot of items relative to the comments that are going to be in that report now. I think we should wait and see what comes out of the discussion involving particularly the western Ministers of Agriculture and the federal Minister of Agriculture on that final report that they now have.

Mr. Robinson: Madam Chairperson, to the best of my knowledge, one of the recommendations in the report of the producer payment panel was No. 9: It is recommended that the government complete an assessment of the future of the Churchill elevator and the role of the Port of Churchill as a grain export route as soon as possible and issue a policy decision in order to remove the existing uncertainty.

Now the press release I have here is dated June 30, 1994. In the press release it recommends a line that Churchill be exempt from the branch line rationalization package but recommends an early decision on a future Churchill be made recognizing the cost of shipping grain through Churchill. I would just like to put that on record, and I agree with the minister. I would like to have the final look at the final report before making further comments on that. Certainly it is something that does concern our members and also our constituents in the community of Churchill.

One final question for the honourable minister, Madam Chairperson, is the Arctic Bridge agreement and the one million tonnes that the Deputy Premier promised would be shipped through this agreement. I am wondering when we will see something come out of this agreement or perhaps the government has given up on this proposed initiative.

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the Arctic Bridge concept was discussed by the Premier with officials when he was in Russia in '91. The current Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), who was Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism, and I were there in '92 when a preliminary agreement was signed. Subject to that, a consultant was hired to explore opportunities between the Ports of Murmansk and Churchill, in other words between northern Russia and Manitoba. That report has still not been received by us yet. We are still awaiting that report.

In all due respect, Madam Chairperson, the reports we read about the state of affairs in Russia are certainly of grave concern to us in terms of ability for them to do business with us. Things are not as good now as they were in '92 would be my perception from what I read and what I see.

The comments from some official in Russia here, I believe I read them in one of the farm papers last week, were that they would be buying no grain, which is certainly not good news for western Canada and particularly Manitoba in terms of opportunities to export some of that through Churchill.

We await the consultant's report. Caribou Ventures was the consultant.

I would just like to say something else to the member. The producer payment panel has put out its final report. It is recommending that the WGTA monies be paid to the producer. I can assure the member that there is nobody who is more astute about deciding what is to his cost advantage to do. In other words, a producer will analyze the options where he can export his grain at the lowest cost to him, in other words, greatest return into his pocket.

There has been lots of information supplied and generated over the last few years that would indicate Churchill could compete very, very well to attract activity. We have to be concerned about whether the people making the decision in the past whether to use or not to use that port really takes the true economic picture into consideration.

I can assure the member that producers are in a position in the future to have the power to decide where to spend their transportation money to export their grain. Churchill will look very attractive to them on the balance sheet. I think that is a bit of a silver lining at this time, because if the producers see an opportunity to export more cost effectively through Churchill, they will do what it takes to drive the decisions in that direction.

I think there are some positive opportunities there. We must all work together as we have in the past in this House to ensure that the positive opportunities in Churchill are not lost in the shuffle.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Chair, I have a few questions to the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay).

To pick up on where my colleague the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) left off a moment ago with respect to the Arctic Bridge agreement, when we were in the Estimates process the minister made reference to the fact that there was around a $100,000 contract that had been awarded or given to Caribou consultants.

Can the minister tell me how much of those monies have been expended for Caribou? Does he have available to him information relating to the amount of monies that have been expended or paid to Caribou at this point in time?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, I do not have the exact figure. It is a portion of the total contract. It is not all of the contract. I would suggest it is in the ballpark of about two‑thirds of the total contract. If I am not mistaken‑‑I would not want to be held to this‑‑but if I am not mistaken, the contract was a little less than $100,000, and roughly two‑thirds of it has been paid, is my recollection, but I do not have the figures in front of me.

Mr. Reid: Is it possible to get a copy of the contract that was awarded so that we can have an idea of what the terms of reference were? My colleague here has already asked the minister questions about any positive outcome as a result of any dealings with the Russian government to enhance export opportunities through Churchill to Murmansk, Russia, and vice versa.

So I would like to know what the terms of the contract were and, if possible, see a copy of the contract and also to find out whether or not we got good value for our dollar on this.

Mr. Findlay: In this contract, three departments are involved and I will inquire to determine if there is a willingness to release the contract so we know the terms of reference. I think the member will probably be quite happy with the terms of reference. Whether we receive the kind of opportunity we all want to receive is certainly an open question.

* (1610)

Mr. Reid: I look forward to any information the minister can provide on that and let me know, if possible, if not at some other time in this House, maybe in writing in the future as time progresses.

I have another question. I want to switch for a moment to the rail merger issue. I know that the minister has already indicated that this is going to be on the agenda for the transport ministers meeting that is supposed to take place in Calgary this week. We had Sypher: Mueller International, which was a consulting firm that is supposed to be doing some work on the merger issue, and, it is my understanding, was supposed to report back to the ministers of transport prior to this meeting taking place.

Does the minister have a copy of the report that Sypher: Mueller International is supposed to have available for this point in time since the meeting, I believe, is supposed to take place tomorrow?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, no, I do not have it, and I have not received it. It is supposed to be presented to us either tomorrow or the next day, I am not sure which day on the agenda. Certainly, three provinces, as the member knows, were involved: Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. As far as I know, we will be receiving the report in the next day or two from the consultants, and we will see what it says. I also understand, we will probably have some comments from the railroads in terms of where they are at. So we will certainly have a greater level of knowledge in the next two or three days.

Mr. Reid: I know that the time spent was not that great from when the consulting firm was hired‑‑and looking at the news release I think it was June 3‑‑so there is not a great deal of time in there that the company had to come forward with any recommendations or any advice for the government, but it seems that if they had been agreeable to the terms to undertake this work for the three governments, the government, the minister himself should have had some opportunity to review the issues or the items that would have been brought forward by this consulting firm. So I am a bit disappointed that the minister would not have had that opportunity to reference the document and to apprise the House of or make the House aware of any of the items in that.

Quite possibly, then, if the minister is agreeable, when the transport ministers' meeting has concluded at the end of this week, I would be interested to see a copy of the consulting firm's report, if the minister is agreeable to that, so that we might be aware of what issues were identified by the consulting firm that the three levels of government should be raising in their meetings that are going to take place.

Mr. Findlay: Well, Madam Chair, certainly I will consider the member's request. I am not 100 percent positive we will see the report. We are expecting it. It is supposed to be there.

The member says why would we not have seen it before we go? Well, things happen fast and you have got to think on your feet in this business. Unfortunately, there is an awful lot on our agenda. I can assure the member the time allotted for the agenda items that we all have on our table right now is about a quarter of what we really are going to need.

I am a little disappointed that the federal minister has not allocated more than two hours in one afternoon to talk with us with a wide variety of issues that he has opened up in the last few weeks with his comments, let alone the issues that are already on the table that the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) has raised and a number of other ones. If he is expecting great success out of our meeting, I have to caution him ahead that enough time has not been allotted to have the kind of in‑depth discussion with 11 ministers that is needed. My experience tells me that this meeting will open up a lot of maybe‑‑dare I say?‑‑some wounds that are going to have to be worked on to get some resolution to some of the issues that are in front of us, but most of them are not easy.

Clearly, I think I have said before that the CN‑CP merger is an issue that is on the table out of necessity, and both railroads are losing money far faster than they can ever afford to do. Eventually it comes back on the user and the taxpayer in this country to eventually pay those bills. They have got to change the way they do business in some fashion to move goods in this country in a fashion that does not allow them or cause them to lose money in the process. It is going to require significant adjustment, and adjustment is always painful, but we want to be sure that, whatever adjustment process occurs, both of those competing railroads survive for the good of all Canadians. We want to be sure that it does not have an undue negative impact on Manitoba that exceeds our ability to absorb that impact or we are treated unfairly in the process.

I think I have also said to the member previously that there are certainly reasons to think that we will come out ahead in this process relative to other regions of the country, because this is always going to be a hub, east‑west, and the opportunities that are going south.

The member probably saw very recently that one of the major commodities that railroads move‑‑now the biggest market for Canadian sales of cereal grains, in fact, all grain commodities‑‑oilseeds, cereal grains, special crops‑‑is the United States. I remember standing in this House receiving questions from the opposition in the former responsibility saying that the Free Trade Agreement was important to us, opened up opportunity, not that we did not already have free trade in agriculture in most of our commodities. I said it creates an atmosphere and attitude that more activity will go south, and clearly that is what has happened, much faster than we ever expected. I remember standing here and saying the U.S. has become more important. It is now the sixth biggest market for us. Well, last year it was fourth and now it is first. So what this really does is change the direction of commodity movement. It requires great change in the way the rails are operating in western Canada, in fact, North America.

The member is, I am sure, aware that CP now has 30 percent of their trackage in the United States; CN, 10 percent. It certainly does not serve all the market areas in the United States, but they have some doors open to them in terms of running on certain trackage, and I hope they have other agreements to move to other trackage within the United States. The direction of trade is changing, and the world is changing. We must adapt. We must adapt in the fashion that is economically viable for not only the railroads but for the entire industry, and I feel we are moving in that direction, but the member must be prepared to accept some change in the way things are done for the betterment of all in the long run. Sure, there is going to be some hurt along the way, there is no question. The government's job is to try and mitigate that hurt and be sure that we are doing the right things for the right reasons, and he can depend on us to try to achieve that.

Mr. Reid: Well, the minister raised a lot of points in his comments. He talks about hurt and I will pick up on the hurt. One of the unfortunate parts, though, is that a lot of the people that are going to be hurt by any of those changes, in any of the shift of the operations from rail to trucking, are going to be people of my community, and my job here is to represent a lot of those interests. Even though the minister says‑‑and the former Minister of Health laughs at the fact that I raise the issues to represent my constituents. It is something that I have to do. I have to do that because these are people that‑‑

Madam Chairperson: Order, please.

Point of Order

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Chairperson, the member for Transcona has just made a remark that reflects his immaturity and his inaccuracy in statement. I would ask you to ask him to withdraw it and stick to the facts instead of this silliness.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Chair, I cannot raise a point of order on a point of order. First of all I do not believe it is a legitimate point of order, but I think whatever the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) said was made mildly in comparison to the statements that the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) made, and I would perhaps urge the minister to withdraw some of the comments he made. I do not think this is in the best interest of anyone to get into the kind of comments the minister made back and forth in the kind of personal insults.

Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Energy and Mines did not have a point of order.

* * *

* (1620)

Mr. Reid: Madam Chairperson, even the CEO of CP Rail is saying that there is going to be some impact when we change the method of payment. The minister has talked about significant changes in the direction that grain traffic has been flowing. We have seen huge increases in traffic flows to the U.S. We were concerned in the past and we have raised the issue in the past about the impact that there is going to be on the Department of Highways and Transportation if we shift from rail to trucking. It is going to cause a squeeze on the finances available as we try to maintain and improve the highway systems. So that is another reason why we changed.

I know this is a double‑edged sword that if we improve by changing the method of payments, we improve the opportunities for the Port of Churchill to export products through the port, because producers will then have the chance to choose. It then takes away, because even the CEOs at CP Rail now say there are going to be some impact by the change in the method of payment where they are going to have to rationalize their network. With the rationalization of the network go the jobs. So it is a double‑edged sword here. If Churchill benefits by the change in the method of payment because producers select it, which I hope they do, then railway jobs are going to be put at risk. My job here is to represent the interests of the railway people in my community, and that is what I have done.

I am not sure if the minister is aware of this or not, but when we talked about the merger of the two railways from Winnipeg east, it is my understanding that just recently the CN Rail received approval from the NTA to abandon the Graham sub which is in northwestern Ontario. That is the link that goes between the CN north line and Thunder Bay, Ontario, which means that now the railway will not be able to ship grain products to Thunder Bay via the north line. It leaves them with the south line which runs through U.S. territory. So I am not sure if the CN Rail is planning on shipping all their products via the south line to Thunder Bay or they are even planning on abandoning or bypassing Thunder Bay. I am not sure what the long‑term plan is there. I am bringing this up for the minister's information so that when he goes to the Transport ministers meeting that he is aware of this item.

Also, it is my understanding that when we talk about the merger of the two railway lines and you look at the logic of what the intent is, CN currently has, out of our regional headquarters here in Winnipeg and the employees that do the work here, we look after some 1,100 miles of rail network on CN line east of Winnipeg and only 145 miles west of Winnipeg. So when you take a look at what happens when you merge those two lines, there is potential for us to lose all of the CN regional headquarters jobs here in Winnipeg.

The minister, I am sure, already knows from his department staff how many jobs that we have to maintain and look after that 1,100 miles of line east of Winnipeg. So we have a lot at risk here by the merger of those two rail lines. It is not just the maintenance jobs and the rolling stock equipment through the Transcona main shops or the CP Weston shops. We have the CN regional headquarters here in the city as well, and maybe even the CP headquarters jobs, whatever is left of them. So I raise that with the minister, and I will leave that for the minister's information.

When I left the Estimates process, I asked the minister for some information relating to tolls. There are other jurisdictions in the country that have asked for or have moved toward private highway contracts, and there are going to be toll roads on those to pay for those highways. Are there plans by the Department of Highways to move in a direction where we will have private companies constructing and paying for those roads as we have seen in other jurisdictions?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the member, I know, in the interest of time, would like me to move on just to the last question, but he has raised a number of comments along the way. One of them was raised that I will try to quickly answer, give a comment here.

He raised a comment, and he used it again here, that CP executive individuals or senior executives of CP had made certain comments about change in the method of payment. My staff have inquired. They can find no comments from any senior executive of CN or CP with regard to that in recent time. They have contacted the public relations department for both CN and CP, and they cannot find any public or media reports recording any such comments. Now if the member has something there, maybe he would let me know where he has found it. The member has mentioned that senior executives of the railway have said those, so let us see the evidence.

The member must be aware‑‑he says he is concerned about jobs for his constituents. The MLA for Transcona, I am sure, has constituents who not only work for rail but also are employed in the trucking industry. If we look back, since 1940‑‑and I have seen the statistics‑‑there has almost been a doubling in the amount of freight handled by trucks and a reduction of the amount by rail by about half. So there has been a steady progression, for the last 50 years, of movement of commodities. What used to be hauled by rail is now hauled by truck to a greater and greater extent.

Now, one could argue all the reasons why that has happened, but it is a reality. The total number of jobs has certainly gone down in recent years in the industry because of efficiencies, larger units, computerization and logistics and all of those reasons, but the reality of their future is‑‑just take grain. I mean, it is a raw commodity; it is going to have to be hauled by something. We will consume no more 10 or 20 years from now in Manitoba than we do today, and we do grow more and more. We grow a wider variety of commodities which require more specialized types of transportation probably, dare I use the word, a little less efficient way of moving the product because we do not have 100,000 tonnes of one thing, you have 10,000 tonnes of 10 different items. As we move more into the States, it take more trackage or more roads, longer distances, more jobs, in other words, of moving the commodities to market today than what was the case 10 years ago.

So the jobs are going to be somewhere in the transportation industry. Now the game is going to be, who can most cost effectively and performance‑wise deliver the product from the seller to the buyer? But there are going to be jobs in between; no question there are going to be jobs, rail industry or trucking industry. [interjection] The member says, how many? Well, it is going to be a matter of what is the most cost‑effective way to do it, because you cannot say to the farmer he must pay more, more, more of his gross income toward transportation costs to guarantee jobs. The issue is, they must do the job efficiently, effectively toward their existence as a job. There is no question there are going to be products hauled. Now, we say in Manitoba, let us do more value‑added activity, processing, conversion of the raw cereal grain into meat, processing the special crops, and on it goes, and haul more value‑added commodity and create jobs here in Manitoba. In the broad sense of a raw commodity that is taken from the land, we do something with it.

I have to tell the member that exporting raw commodity is exporting jobs. We should be doing the jobs of value adding here. It creates jobs, and a job is a job is a job in my mind. Some of them are more higher value than others, but eventually, we export a product, we absolutely export a product. There are going to be real jobs, trucking jobs or air cargo jobs in that export business. There is no question, but we are definitely in an evolution to doing things differently. It is cost driven, and the producer is taking less and less in the form of income because of higher costs beyond his farm gate. They must come under control. So that is the broad picture.

The member is worried about loss of jobs. I say we must work hard to create opportunities for new jobs, new high‑tech jobs, in one form or another. That is going to be our mission in the next few years. It is the mission of the entire industry. I think we can succeed at it, provided we get on the wavelength that the future is unfolding. There is an old saying: The highway to the future is always under construction. I think that is very, very true.

Madam Chair, now to get back to the basic question, private roads. Currently, I am not aware of any toll roads in Manitoba. How the public can afford to continue to supply the necessary resources to build all the roads that the public needs in the future is certainly a very open question. We support very strongly a national highway program so some of the $4.5 billion of fuel taxes the federal government collects is actually spent on some road somewhere in Canada. Currently, they spend about $200 million on roads, collect $4,500 million, so there is a big gap that they do not return to the road network.

In Manitoba, as we do the calculations, the total revenues collected from roads and vehicle registrations is very much in balance with our expenditure on roads in terms of construction and maintenance. So our record is clean in terms of, the revenues we collect go to the road system. Federal government has a very dirty record, and we want them to commit to a national highway program so that we can source some funds to do more construction than we do today, because as the member knows‑‑I am trying to think of the right terminology. TRIP Canada has said that in order to maintain our roads, in terms of an analysis, we should be spending about $136 million a year. We spend $110 million. Now, I think that is pretty good, pretty close, but clearly the National Highways Program would supply to Manitoba something like $30 million a year. There we could fill in. We could actually be keeping up in terms of maintenance and reconstruction, keep up with the need in the province of Manitoba. I do not think any other province is even as close as we are to achieving that. But, if we had some federal money, it could be done, and I think that is the right way to go if we are going to spend more money on infrastructure renewal and upgrading in the province of Manitoba.

* (1630)

Mr. Reid: I have put some things on the record to give the minister some notice about questions I had intended to ask when we moved to concurrence. One of the questions I had asked at that time had to do with graduated licensing because the department had given some indication that they were considering graduated licensing just a short time ago. I am wondering if there has been further work or there is further intent on the part of this government to move towards a graduated licensing system for Manitoba.

Mr. Findlay: I have looked at the statistics of our young people in terms of their record as drivers. There is no question there is a higher accident rate for those under 19 than for say people 30 or 40 years of age. The purpose of graduated licensing is to restrict everybody getting their licence in some uniform fashion.

Madam Chairperson, I want to tell the members of the House that when we look at the statistics, the problem area is the young male between 16 and 19. The young female driver in the same age category has a tremendously better driving record. Now, the NDP is promoting graduated licensing and saying we should negatively impact all those young people at 16 who are entering their first opportunity for a driver's licence. I say it is unfair to do that. If we have people that are causing trouble, then let us focus our laws to respond to them doing something wrong, whether it is speeding or racing or whatever it is, as we did we with auto theft and auto vandalism in this particular session of the Legislature. I do not think that we should‑‑and I speak for the young female drivers‑‑subject them to more restrictions to obtaining their drivers licences, because their record is very good as drivers, very good, very responsible.

So I do not think that I want to be an advocate of the current definition of graduated licences, which says we will make it another three months, six months, or one year longer for everybody to obtain their first driver's licence. I say, let them prove themselves, let them go through the current process of a one‑year probationary licence, then they get the full licence. But, if you do something wrong, whether it is alcohol or speeding, whatever it is, then invoke the laws and take away the driver's licence, but do not treat everybody negatively just because they are in a certain age category. That is where‑‑although graduated licensing sounds like a good idea, think of how it negatively impacts those young people who have done nothing wrong.

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

I believe in the principle "innocent till proven guilty." That is why we have done the auto theft/auto vandalism to attack a certain problem. I think it is a good thing for society to do that. I hope it succeeds in reducing the incidence of those activities, but in terms of tougher drinking‑and‑driving laws, we have clearly done that, in terms of Bill 3‑‑what, three, four, maybe even five years ago now. In terms of trying to be sure that the roads are safe, the statistics do prove they are getting a little bit safer.

I think the laws to restrict who drives should be targeted at exactly those people who cause the trouble. Graduated licensing, unfortunately, does not target exactly at the people who cause the trouble.

The circumstance‑‑I think I have given the member the figures before‑‑is that of 670,000 people who have licences in the province, at any given time about 27,000 are on suspension for one reason or another. That is an awful lot.

We do catch a lot of people along the way. Unfortunately, some of them still drive. That is a problem. How do you catch them? Certainly the police, in the process of doing their work, continually attempt to pick them off. Anytime you have the ALERT program, you sure pick some of them off.

Our position is, graduated licensing does not target the problem. Our position as government is, if there is a predicted problem, a certain action in society that is offending the rest, we want to target the laws at them.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank the minister for the information, because I was concerned that when the department started talking about this issue some time ago that the government was actually going to move in that direction. I just wanted to clarify what their policy intent was.

Now that we have clarified that issue, the government now does not appear that they are going to be moving in that direction. I know the silly former Minister of Health thinks that these questions are not important, but I think that they are, and that is why I asked them. I am just trying to do my job to the best of my ability. Whether he likes it or not, I am going to continue to do that.

I had also asked some questions relating to the cost recovery for the Photo Licensing program and what monies are benefited or profited by the continuation of the $4‑per‑year additional licence fee. I want to know which monies are reaped from continuation of this program. I had given that question to the minister by way of advance notice when we concluded the Estimates process.

Mr. Findlay: Hopefully, these are the numbers the member is looking for. Our total annual salary and expenditure cost for renewing the photo licences at a quarter of them a year, in other words, once every four years, is $1.9 million. That is our cost. The revenue generated from the $4 licence is $2.68 million. So the government is recovering its cost.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that information. The minister was also going to provide some information relating to carriers, trucks and trip inspection reports, facility audits. He was going to give me some statistics on that. I am wondering if the minister has that information available as well. Maybe if he has it, he could just send it across for my information.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Deputy Chair, what the member is asking for is a little bit more than what I have right in front of me at the moment, so I would prefer to send it to him at a little later date. We will compile the information. He suggested trip inspection reports, costs and that sort of thing, so we will send that information over.

Mr. Reid: I am also interested in information relating to the Taxicab Board, and I had asked the minister for information relating to Bill 24 implementation. I am wondering if the minister can tell me what the plans are with respect to that piece of legislation and also if we are taking any steps to improve the safety for those that are currently driving taxicab vehicles in the city of Winnipeg. There still appears to be some safety concerns. There are some ways in which taxicab drivers that are in distress can signal, but I do not think there is a general public awareness of the process of utilizing the roof light on top of the vehicles. I am wondering if there are some means or some studies that the government is undertaking to look at improving the safety for those that are operating those vehicles.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member asks about proclaiming a certain bill that was passed a year ago. I told him in Estimates that as government we are relatively pleased with the improved attitude out there in the industry. The performance and some of the hassles that were there before are either diminished or maybe resolved, and I think a lot of the credit for that goes to the Taxicab Board and the way they are approaching things in terms of the input they are receiving from the taxicab drivers. Clearly, as long as things are going well, there is no need to rock the boat.

I think we need a little more time for the process of the new board to continue to do its work with the industry. In regard to personal safety‑‑I think he is referring to personal safety of the drivers‑‑clearly if there are ways and means to make things work better, the Taxicab Board is the jurisdiction to deal with. They can work with the industry to do certain things, to standardize the way things are done in some fashion, like the member says with the light on the roof or whatever. If there are ways to do things, I can assure him that the Taxicab Board is more than willing to work with the industry or with the local police officials to improve safety in the work environment for those individuals.

* (1640)

There is a retired police officer on the Taxicab Board at this time, and surely we have an opportunity through him to have input to, certainly, the Winnipeg police, who are the jurisdiction most responsible. So I think things have improved significantly, and I am confident it can continue that way because I like the attitude of the Taxicab Board. Truly, the less the minister's office is involved in this industry, the better everything is. The more the Taxicab Board works with the industry, the better it is for all the players. That is the way it is progressing, and I expect it to continue to work that way.

Mr. Reid: I am happy to hear that things are moving along relatively smoothly with the Taxicab Board in its relationship with the taxicab industry. I think that was the general direction we wanted to go when Bill 24 was being debated in this House and when it was at committee. I hope that we do not have to implement that piece of legislation. I had also asked the minister to provide me with some information relating to the cost recovery for the Taxicab Board operations and the other board operations, including the Motor Transport Board, the Highway Traffic Board and the Licence Suspension Appeal and Medical Review Committee Board as well, because in the past Estimates, we had talked about moving the Taxicab Board itself to full‑cost recovery.

It only seemed to me to be fair that if we are going to do that for one board, we can do it for the other boards as well instead of trying to single out one particular industry and the people that have their employment through that.

I am wondering if the minister has that information available, with respect to the cost recovery.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, with regard to the Motor Transport Board, the expenditures are $470,000, and the revenues and regulated fees‑‑we are talking about the current budget‑‑are $158,000. So expenditures still exceed revenue by $312,000 for the Motor Transport Board.

With regard to the other boards, I would have to get the information and send it over to the member at a later date.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I look forward to receiving that information from the minister.

There were some grants that the Department of Highways and Transportation gives to various organizations in each budget year: Manitoba Safety Council, Canada Safety Council, Traffic Injury Research Foundation, and Society for Manitobans with Disabilities Inc. Does the minister have the information relating to the dollar value of the grants that were given this year for those organizations? It is my understanding that one of those organizations is receiving substantially less than they have in prior years, and I want to know if the same applies to other organizations as well.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the one is receiving substantially less. I am sure the member is referring to the Manitoba Safety Council. The amount of grant that they received was reduced 50 percent last budget, 50 percent this budget. [interjection] It was communicated to them two years ago, the former minister tells me, and at this current time in this budget, the grant to them is effectively zero.

They are an agency that we use very, very regularly, consistently through DDVL, the Division of Driver Vehicle Licensing, in terms of sending people over to take courses. The people that take those courses pay a fee, and the purpose, what we felt that the Manitoba Safety Council, in terms of the fees they charge, could cover their full cost. Clearly we send them the clients, and they set the fees in order to balance their budget.

The last time I talked to their executive director they felt they were doing okay in terms of living in the new environment without the provincial grant. They certainly were pleased that we continue to send them the clients in increasing numbers, and for public safety reasons we do that. They are charging fees appropriate with their costs and are able to recover through their fee schedule the costs of running their courses, in other words, doing their business.

So that is an agreement that was struck between the government, the department, and the Manitoba Safety Council. I think we have eliminated the subsidization of their operation. They have charged the fees so the people whom we send over as customers are paying the cost, and I think that is the fair and reasonable way to operate.

Mr. Reid: I am sorry. I did not catch the last part of the minister's comments, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I had also asked the minister for information relating to grants to other organizations. I am wondering if the Canada Safety Council, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation and the SMD are receiving grants and what dollar values.

Mr. Findlay: I do not have the exact figures in front of me, but to my recollection, they are all the same as the previous year.

House Business

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to suggest that committee temporarily interrupt its proceedings so that Mr. Speaker may resume in the Chair so that we can determine whether there is unanimous consent of the House to waive private members' hour. If there is, Committee of Supply can immediately resume sitting to consider the matter now before it.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is there leave then to allow me to call in the Speaker and temporarily interrupt proceedings, and then we will proceed after the Chair gives us leave? [agreed]

Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I believe, Mr. Acting Speaker, that there is unanimous consent of the House to waive private members' hour and to sit beyond 6 p.m. this evening.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Is there leave to waive private members' hour and sit beyond 6 p.m.? [agreed]

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(continued)

Supply‑‑Capital Supply

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): The committee will come to order.

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would just like to finish up with the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay). I know my colleague from Swan River has a few points to make.

I would just like to put on record for the minister that I am requesting, if he wants to either take it from Hansard or make copies now himself, certain roads that I would like an update on and what the department is planning on these roads. I would appreciate that instead of dragging this out now.

* (1650)

I was going to mention Highway 329 to the minister, and that is from Highway 326 west to Highway 17. At certain points that road is probably in the same kind of condition if not worse than 234 in certain spots. Highway 231 between Highways 7 and 17‑‑and I do know that there are proponents, as the minister mentioned earlier‑‑about Highway 325 from Ashern east to 329, the general maintenance on that road, and, of course, upgrading of that road.

Also, to the minister, I would like some response as to the condition and any proposed work and maintenance that has been or has not been done on Highway 513 from Gypsumville to the Dauphin River reserve. The calls are constant on that road, and I would certainly like to see the minister do as much as possible with the maintenance on that road and the upkeep. Perhaps we can see some projects down the road to improve further than what has been improved on that road.

I want to bring to the minister's attention also a letter that I received from the Little Saskatchewan Reserve from Chief Shorting. It goes back to June of '93. He had written to Mr. G.W. Stary in Dauphin in June of '93 requesting that certain roads, main market roads around that area are in bad shape. He called me just last week indicating that he has not received any word on his request to do something about the conditions of the roads in the area. He mentions market roads 52, 53 and 56 and that he had spoken with Mr. Stary and is waiting, waiting for an answer to his request.

On one last note, and I would like the minister to respond to this, Highway 417 from Highway 6 west to the main road on the Lake Manitoba reserve. The minister has received letters from myself, letters from the R.M. of Eriksdale and from chief and council from Lake Manitoba reserve requesting that this road be put back on the program and that the government of the day respond and do something about getting 417 back on line. I would just like to know what the minister is proposing to do about Highway 417 from Highway 6 in Eriksdale and west to Lake Manitoba reserve.

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): I guess, if this was the world of magic we would instantly just fix everything overnight, but the member, I am sure, is aware of reality. It takes a lot longer to fix all the roads he just talked about. We will respond from Hansard with all the different roads he has mentioned with regard to an update and where things are at. Some of them are in various stages of activity.

I want to specifically mention just briefly to the member the situation around road 417. There had been attempts to do some work that was initiated way back in 1982. The request at the time‑‑in order to widen the road through the reserve, they had to have access to the land. I do not know whether the member is aware of it or not, but the band consistently refused to make the land available. So the department's hands have been tied for some time in order to upgrade that road through the reserve. We understand recently that the band has changed its position and is prepared to make the land available. So the member can chastise the department for not doing something, but I want him to know the department is not completely at fault, okay?

There is a letter going out talking about the various sections of the road. I think the road is divided into three sections from Eriksdale, first 24 kilometres and the next 13 kilometres to the band office and then the remaining almost 5 kilometres to Highway 68. There is going to be a letter going out talking about each of the sections. Clearly, the member also has to realize that since we are on reserve land, for a good portion of this there is a cost sharing that must happen with the federal government.

The traditional cost sharing is 60‑40‑‑60 federal and 40 provincial. That is a requirement. We are not the only player in this game and we would certainly expect the federal government to participate in a positive sense with us. So we are proceeding now that we understand there is an agreement for us to acquire the land. We have to proceed with the federal government to get them to cost share, and on things shall go.

I do not want the member to try to indicate the department is consistently at fault, not doing their homework. Their hands are tied in two different ways. One of the logjams seems to have been broken now. Maybe we can get on with doing some things that are good for his constituents.

The vehicle count on the road, the first section of the road west of Eriksdale, has been increasing. So it is starting to warrant activity. We do keep track of counts on a lot of roads. The member has a number of roads he has mentioned that maybe the number of vehicles per day is not quite what is necessary in competition with the roads in other regions of the province to have attention given to them, but we will send an update on all those roads.

The one that he mentioned, 513, is divided into eight different sections. Different portions have been constructed over the last five, six, seven years, but there is always another section that is urgent today. When somebody asks for it, they forget that we have already done two or three sections.

The member has to give us a little leniency in terms of being able to live within the restrictions the taxpayer gives us. I think we do spend a lot of money on capital construction of roads and on maintenance. We will never be able to satisfy everybody all the time, but we will always be prepared to discuss and compare options as to where we can most effectively spend our money to improve the roads for all Manitobans.

I will send the member an update on a wide variety of roads and am prepared to sit down and discuss with him, as I said earlier, where he believes the most urgent priorities are, and we will go from there.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I know we have spent quite a lot of time on highways, but I have a few questions that I would like to ask the minister about a few particular roads. If he cannot get the answers to me today, I would be just as happy if he would get them to me in writing.

There are a couple of roads in my constituency that I have written to the minister about, one of them being 269 in the Ethelbert area where they are trying to get a by‑pass around the community. There is a dispute between Water Resources and the Highways department as to whether or not that by‑pass should go ahead. It is very important because there is no alternative access out of the community if there should be a problem with the bridge coming out of Ethelbert which is a very old, narrow bridge.

I would ask the minister if he would look into that and correspond with me and with the community as to how this Water Resources, Highways department problem can be resolved.

In the Ethelbert area, there is also 273, a road that the R.M. of Ethelbert has been trying to get improved. Again the Water Resources department indicates that there is a problem with drainage.

It appears in both those cases it is a matter of one department passing the buck onto the other department. The improvements of roads are being held up in that area.

So, in both of those, I would ask the minister if he would look into those and correspond with me and with the R.M. of Ethelbert as to how those two issues can be resolved. Perhaps in the next year we can see both those projects go onto a road program, but they keep getting stalled because of a water problem.

* (1700)

The other issue that I want to raise with the Minister of Natural Resources is the road into Pelican Rapids. Two years ago the previous Minister of Highways had indicated that there would be continuous salt applied onto that road into Pelican Rapids. That has never happened. There has been some reason for delay of that, so if the minister can look into that, I would appreciate an answer on that.

As well, I read in a press release in one of the newspapers in Swan River that the Lenswood Bridge is going to be built this year, but when I checked with the department it is not going to be built. It is just a feasibility on the approaches. So if the minister could indicate what the time frame is on the Lenswood Bridge‑‑that has been a bridge that has come up, I think, for the last, about 15 years. It always seems to surface at election time, and it comes on as a promise again. It is not fair to the people that they should be delayed.

There is a desperate need for that bridge. I think the minister was out and looked at it. It is a very narrow bridge. People in that area are adding 15 to 20 miles in some cases onto their trip to another piece of land because the bridge is just too narrow for people to get their equipment on. With the change in equipment that we have right now, I think the minister understands why that bridge has to be looked into.

Those are the four roads on which I would appreciate some response from the minister, and, as I say, not necessarily today. The other issue is the Cowan subline. The minister said he would be communicating with the federal government, with the railways, on keeping that railway open or taking it off any list which might discontinue services. We have not heard from the minister whether he has had any firm commitment from the federal government on that.

I think the minister recognizes that with the activity that is going on in the Swan River area right now, this railway is vital to that operation of the plant should it proceed. We would like to know whether the federal government is committed to keeping that railway‑‑or whether CN is committed to keeping that railway opened so that we can proceed with the economic development in that area, particularly with the proposed Louisiana‑Pacific plant. If it is built, that railway is a vital part of it.

I would ask the minister if he could look into those few areas and respond, not necessarily today, but I would look for answers in those areas.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have noted the member's requests, five of them here certainly. On the first three, on 269, 273 and the road to Pelican Rapids, I will respond to her in writing. I do not have the information in front of me. I was not aware of the dispute she is referring to with Water Resources, but clearly we will attempt to find out what the problem is, what the dispute is. Any dispute should have resolution, so we will communicate with her.

With regard to the Lenswood Bridge, the member is exactly right. I have visited the bridge. I have travelled it; I have seen it. I know exactly what she is referring to. With today's equipment, yes, there is a problem‑‑a clear problem. The bridge is old, it is restrictive to what can get over it, and the alignment of the road is just not consistent with the kind of road we want today. It is winding, bending and I think certainly a safety hazard for anybody who is travelling. The majority of that road‑‑what is the road number?‑‑268. I have visited it, and we have it in the spring program this year.

I can assure the member it is a commitment that we have made that will be fulfilled, and the member can go back and say that. When something is in the spring program, the general process is it is announced, the industry knows the project is out there and it will be tendered sometime in the next year. It does not mean we instantly build it this year. There is a process of getting the specs, doing the tendering and then it happens. The member for Swan River can rest assured that we will follow through. I personally speeded it up to get it into the spring program for this year so that is a commitment to Swan River that is going to be kept. She can depend on that because we are the kind of government that does live up to our commitments.

I also would like to just briefly comment to the member on the Cowan sub. We have written letters to the federal Minister of Transport again and again. It is one of those letters that has not had a response. We do not know yet what position the federal government is going to take on it. Clearly, the member talks about Louisiana‑Pacific and I think she used "should it proceed" or "if it proceeds." I think the verb is "when it proceeds."

When‑‑because the rail will be important to Louisiana‑Pacific in terms of moving product out of that particular plant and I presume also into the plant. We certainly raised that with the federal government. From when the original washout occurred, that is kind of new information. Really we are talking initially about movement of grain, and now we are moving grain and other commodities, particularly associated with Louisiana‑Pacific, so I think it adds further reason as to why that line should be kept. We hope the federal government will see it that way and respond in that context.

With regard to the first three, I will respond in writing to the member. I have given her a very clear, strong indication on item 4, and item 5, again, we will deal with the federal government.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I look forward to those responses. The minister says he is going to deliver on that Lenswood Bridge. I really hope so. He says he has made a commitment, and we will hold him to that commitment. The only reason I raised the election promises is because I remember, back in 1986, that bridge was promised, and the people of the area know that. They have had this bridge promised so many times and announcements made, and I would not want to see them disappointed. The minister indicates he is going to deliver. I hope he does.

With regard to the plant, I sincerely hope that plant is built. We are waiting to see whether or not. The only reason I say, if the plant is built is because we are waiting to see whether or not this government is going to issue them a licence to proceed. That is the reason.

The Environment Commission and ultimately the Minister of Environment, that is where it sits, so that was the only reason I said if. My hope is that very soon, we will see something. However, I have some questions for the Minister of Natural Resources. Just as with Highways, there are many important issues in rural Manitoba. The Department of Natural Resources has a great impact on my constituency, and there are a few issues that I want to cover off.

I want to talk to the minister, first of all, about the fishing industry. The minister was in Swan River earlier this year‑‑I believe it was in February‑‑to meet with the fishermen on Lake Winnipegosis, and at that time the fishermen raised some very serious concerns, and the minister said he would address them. One of them was the restocking of the lake, and they talked about the low income that they make off that lake, the difficulties they are facing.

They talked about the Fairford dam. They asked the minister to look into that issue, and the fishermen also felt that they were not involved enough. They were being closed out of some of the decisions that were being made, and the minister had indicated that he would be getting back to the fishermen. A while ago, I had some of the fishermen call me and say that they had not had any response from the minister.

Now, I believe that the minister has met with the fish advisory board, but I do not believe he has corresponded back to the many fishermen who were at that meeting. So the question I have of the minister, first of all, is, what has been the result of that meeting, and what has happened with restocking of Lake Winnipegosis. I understand that there is some work that was done this spring.

I want to ask the minister who was in charge of that operation, of the work that was done there, what kind of work was done on Lake Winnipegosis as far as catching spawn, what is happening and how much money was allocated for the project on Lake Winnipegosis.

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I almost got away.

The member places some valid questions on the record, though I take some sensitivity in terms of the fact that communication has not taken place, because since that meeting where I gave certain undertakings‑‑I thought it was a good meeting. It was an eye opener for me, of course, and the fact that the group up there felt very strongly. When things get tough, of course, they look for something to happen on the positive side.

Since we had that meeting, and they were critical of my biologist and some of the stocking programs that had taken place in the past, and I told them, well, I am prepared to entertain working together with them in terms of setting up a permanent fish hatchery for Lake Winnipegosis.

* (1710)

What has happened since that time is that‑‑because the time was too short for us to set up a permanent fish hatchery for Lake Winnipegosis for the coming year‑‑we had the advisory board basically take the initiative and make contact with the various fish hatcheries, and we released a whole bunch of spawn into Lake Winnipegosis this spring.

The member says there was no communication with the commercial fishermen. I just received a copy of a letter that was sent by Parker Burrell who has taken some of the ownership of trying to get some consensus from the commercial fishermen in the area and also is sort of the head push in terms of the stocking program that took place. The challenge I put before them was that, because they do not have much confidence in the way my biologists are running it, they should take ownership of the fish hatchery. My people will give their expertise and they are supposed to take the responsibility for it.

Like I say, we are looking at the possibility of having two fish hatcheries, one at the north end and one at the south end, that are going to be on a permanent basis that are basically going to be run by the associations. They are tying in also some of the other organizations like the game and fish associations who want to have a role to play in there as well.

What I have asked for basically is some financial participation from the commercial fishermen. I think a proposal has been floated around to them at the present time that they contribute a cent a pound maybe for pickerel and maybe half a cent a pound for the rough fish, other species, into a fund which I will participate in funding through the fish enhancement program and other programs and establish a permanent‑type fish hatchery.

The cost of a permanent fish hatchery could be in the area of $80,000 to $100,000. To me this project is very, very crucial because I regard it as a pilot project. We are looking at doing this kind of arrangement with other communities as well where the interest is there to work in that direction.

I noticed the other day in my Estimates that the member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) already was alluding to the stocking programs. I am prepared to work with any organization to establish these things. My biologists, by and large, feel that stocking is not the most successful thing to do. I feel strongly that it is, and that is a personal view. If you look at what has happened in the States, for example, they have been very successful in stocking a lot of their lakes.

Whether it is for commercial reasons or sport‑fishing reasons, many of our lakes are having difficulties. We are moving forward in terms of developing this kind of scenario. It is a shared scenario where basically they will take ownership of it together with as much expertise as they want from my department and funding through the fish enhancement program and whatever other programs I can get to try and establish these kinds of arrangements.

This has been communicated to the commercial fishermen in that whole Lake Winnipegosis area. They all have a copy of this letter. I saw a copy of the letter that has gone out basically outlining all of these things.

The other issue that the member raised was the Fairford dam. We have people from Lake Winnipegosis who, by and large, still challenge the government, saying that the fish ladder at the Fairford dam is not working well. We had them out there monitoring it, people from Lake Winnipegosis. We also had the people from Lake Winnipegosis involved in catching of spawn for the fish hatcheries.

In terms of the Fairford dam, it appears, and we are prepared to consider it, that maybe the fish ladder is working, but we think it is not maybe adequate enough. We might have to look at establishing another one. I have instructed my staff to take and work together with the commercial fishermen to see whether we can set up another fish ladder, because from the personal experience of the people that came out there and monitored it, they say they were backing up, they were backlogged on the fish ladder. We will try and resolve that as well.

The other issue that was raised with me at that meeting was the problem with the cormorants, the crow ducks. This is an escalating problem basically, because they are a protected species at the present time. I know there is a group that is wanting to raise the issue with the federal ministers to see whether we could give some discretion in terms of starting some control program. It always gets to be a very sensitive issue. I can remember the discussion between the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and my predecessor the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) on the crow duck issue.

It is getting to be more of a problem. I just heard as late as today that on some of the Great Lakes the commercial fishery has really taken a nose dive. A lot of the blame is put on the crow ducks.

I know the sensitivity that the people feel about the crow ducks in the Lake Winnipegosis area. They feel that they have contributed to a great extent to the depletion of the fish and the lake.

Without trying to create a problem, but we had the same situation that basically developed with the beaver problems in the province, where all of a sudden they escalated to the point where there were over a million beavers. We had nothing but problems with municipalities, departments with the beaver problem. We are in the process of making the announcement for a beaver control program again.

Ultimately, I suppose, maybe I will try and work through the sensitive areas of maybe developing a control program for the crow ducks or the pelicans‑‑not pelicans, cormorants.

I think, after the meeting I had with the group out there, which I considered, for myself, an informative meeting, letting them tell me what they want, what they need, I am prepared to give them a lot of ownership in terms of the responsibility of the lake itself and work together with them to see whether we can restore what used to be a very positive fish business out there. [interjection]

The member asked how much money was basically involved. At this stage of the game, for this spring's program, they have identified certain rearing ponds or rearing lakes which at one time government was doing. We have given them some funding to take and do the necessary work on some of these rearing ponds, and I will allow them to do it instead of my biologists to do it. To date, I think we have expended something like $25,000, but that is minute compared to what we have to look at in terms of setting up the fish hatcheries. That is being developed right now.

We are looking at seeing whether we can get various organizations to make applications under the fish futures program, under some of the other programs, with their financial participation as well. I mean, if it is going to work they have to have some involvement in it, other than just managing. They also have to have some financial involvement with it, and then I think it will work.

So we are evolving the plan at the present time, and I feel very positive about it. I want it to work. I have told them I want it to work. I regard this as a pilot project, because if I can make it work there, I can make it work in other lakes in the province.

Ms. Wowchuk: I thank the minister for that information. The minister indicates that the letter has gone, and if that letter has gone, I am pleased to hear that the other fishermen have been contacted. About two weeks ago, there was one other fisherman who contacted me who said he had heard that there was a program going on and that Parker Burrell was in it and Mr. Fleming was involved in it and they were getting money to do some of the work, but the other fishermen did not know what was going on. So I am pleased then that the minister has indicated‑‑

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to just clarify that so there is no misconception. The information was not sent from me. It has been sent by the advisory group to all the commercial fishermen bringing them up to date as to what has happened and asking for their further input to the advisory committee. It was not myself who sent the letter, but the communication has gone out to the groups.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will be back in contact with those who contacted me to see whether they have received the letter, because I think that they should be all involved in it.

The issue of the hatchery is certainly something that the fishermen of the area have long wanted. I am pleased that the government is finally recognizing that the hatching of fish has to happen in the local area, and it should be a means of economic development for local people rather than having the stocks brought in and not handled properly as they have been in many cases.

* (1720)

The minister raised a couple of other issues that I want to touch on. He talked about the beaver control. The minister is well aware that the people in the LGD of Mountain are very disappointed in the decision that this government made. First, the previous Minister of Natural Resources put in place a program that was supposed to cover half of the costs of the beaver control, but there was no indication given to the LGD, or to other areas, that that money was going to be capped at a certain level.

Now I know that money is not open handed, but that was not the message that was given to the people in the LGD. They spent a tremendous amount of money and then they only got, I believe, $2,500 from the government versus the $30,000 that they had spent. They were thinking that they were getting half from the government.

Now this minister has changed his mind and has pulled back all that funding. The municipalities have been caught in a bind because they did not budget for‑‑they were anticipating that half of these costs would be picked up by the government, as was promised by the previous minister.

There are a lot of problems with beaver control out there, and I have written to the minister asking him that he reconsider that position at least for the short term until there is a new policy out, because the municipalities have not budgeted for this extra money and they are going to be in an unfortunate situation.

I would hope that the minister indicates that there is going to be a beaver control program coming out very soon. I look forward to hearing what that is, because certainly with the low prices of furs that we have right now, the beaver are becoming an increasing problem and one that the municipalities are feeling that they cannot bear the cost of.

In fact, the municipality of Mountain is saying, well, if the government is not going to give any money, we are not going to put any money into it, and the farmers and the local people are ending up picking up that whole cost, or having no supports there and we are having farmland being flooded.

It is like everybody is passing the buck. Nobody is taking any responsibility. I think that the government has to take some leadership here. If they are coming forward with a policy, I look forward to hearing that.

The minister talked about the management of, you know, involving people in resources in the lake. It is a good idea to involve other people, but I wonder where the government is on their co‑management of resources. I know the minister has had a call from someone he knows very well, a Duane Whyte from Swan River, whom the minister knows fairly well, I believe, who has some serious concerns about how resources are being managed. He has asked this government to show some leadership in the area of co‑management of resources, and this is something that the government has talked about since I have been here. Since 1990, I have heard them talking about co‑management of resources, but they have not done anything. This government has not pulled people together, whether it be managing of the fish stocks, whether it be managing of the wildlife in the area.

I ask the minister why he has not addressed that concern of the co‑management of the resources and pulled the people together to the table to deal with it. They have done co‑management. We hear about the project in The Pas where we have co‑management and it is working very well, but this government is not moving in that direction. I ask the minister whether or not he will consider it, and why he has not taken the initiative to set up co‑management groups to deal with the various lakes in the Duck and Porcupine Mountains and the management of wildlife in that area.

(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I think the member should be a little bit more cautious when she makes accusations about things not having happened. She covered a whole realm of things here, and I want to respond, but I will start with the last one first.

When she talks of co‑management, we have approximately 20 co‑management agreements in place right now, species specific. We are working, and I gave the assurance to the aboriginal people that we would be looking at expanding this on an ongoing basis.

We have 20 co‑management arrangements in place right now through the province. I am very supportive of further developing that concept, because that is the only way, basically, that we can take, I think, and ultimately retain the wildlife resources, fish resources, that we have out there, because if you have the local people participating and being part of the program, then it is going to be much more effective than having the heavy hand of government telling them how to do things. So I am very receptive to that end of it.

I want to basically go back to the beaver control program. The member said that I terminated the program. I would like to maybe explain to her that at the time when my predecessor was there, it was almost an ad hoc program where they said, well, listen, there is a beaver problem; we will cost‑share. But there was a limit of two and a half thousand dollars at that time. It was not an open‑ended thing.

The concern and why I think there was a limit put on it was because what happened was that certain municipalities were sort of playing on the edge in terms of whether they were doing the right thing or not because councillors were putting in mileage to go and check to see whether there were beavers.

What had happened, because the beaver problem escalated dramatically and the Department of Highways and I, together with the Manitoba Trappers Association and my department, developed a controlled program where we paid Manitoba Trappers Association $35 for every beaver that was taken, providing that it was a problem beaver. They worked together with my department at that time, departmental staff, and the program worked well. There was a lot of money paid out through the Department of Highways, through the Trappers Association, to do that.

When the fur season started, we terminated the program, but we let the municipalities know that this is the deadline for applications. You know, they could put in their bills up to two and a half thousand dollars, and most municipalities did. However, at the time when I had developed a program under Highways with the Manitoba Trappers Association, the Union of Manitoba Municipalities also developed the same concept program with the Manitoba Trappers Association. There were only about five or six of the municipalities that ultimately utilized the program, and they were just getting into the swing of it.

What happened was that we felt that we needed a broader approach to this thing between the Departments of Natural Resources, Rural Development and Highways and the municipalities. We set up a working committee. We said the program would terminate at the time when the fur was prime and that I would have a program in place by the 1st of April in terms of the beaver control program.

Unfortunately, to the member, I have to say, we are way behind, but we set up an association between government people, the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Manitoba Trappers Association. They were supposed to work out a pact that was going to be acceptable. The Union of Manitoba Municipalities is really not that critical. If the member says some of her councils are unhappy with it, they should check with their people who are basically on the committee doing the negotiations.

Ultimately, negotiations broke down because the UMM basically said, we will not pay more than 30 bucks, and the Manitoba Trappers Association said, we need 50 bucks as a bounty basically. I should not use that word, but 50 bucks. The discussions finally broke down and I have been trying to salvage the thing and am now going to be in a position where hopefully within a week I can announce a program. Unfortunately, it will not be including the Manitoba Trappers Association at this stage of the game because they have walked.

We will still be announcing a program and it is very necessary that we do. I have a request from the MTA to meet with them and we will meet with them to see whether we can still get this together. I told the Manitoba Trappers Association that it was not really a big money raiser for them, but at least they could make some money maybe doing that.

Incidentally, I might say that the fur prices are getting better. It is starting to strengthen and ultimately I think that will be more uptake in terms of the trapping because, when you see the increase from 300,000 to 400,000 up to over a million beaver, they are not a problem just in one or two places. They are all over, including in the city. In fact, the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) came up and said they had a problem with beaver right here on Omands Creek or something like that. It is all over the province so we are trying to deal with that. We are trying to develop a program that is going to help control to some degree until the prices come up. I was hoping the Trappers Association could maybe just see their way through to come to some agreement with the UMM for the bigger picture which is basically us working with MTA in terms of trying to promote the fur industry in Europe.

The program should be announced hopefully within a week to 10 days and UMM will then be making the announcement to all their members.

* (1730)

Mr. Clif Evans: I would just like to make some points with the minister and put on record and request that the minister respond to the points that I make here for him instead of prolonging this. There are other members who wish to discuss other issues.

I am pleased to hear that the minister is hopefully getting involved with hatcheries. It is a very big issue, becoming even a greater issue in my own constituency. I have had responses from Dauphin River, Fisher River, Riverton, Waterhen area who want to begin this program again. It is extremely important. What the minister hears from his department on the one hand and what he hears on the other hand basically what I am getting to is to listen to the fishermen who are in the area. They are the ones who are in the know as to how much fish there are and what the future of fishing is around Lake Winnipeg, Lake Manitoba, Winnipegosis, et cetera.

But I would like to make the minister aware that I have been requested to ask this minister the background and the reasoning and what occurred to shut down the Dauphin River hatchery.

This community, Madam Chair, has been discussing this with me since 1990. I am a proponent of it, and I feel that it is very, very important. Just as the