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

The honourable member for Flin Flon might want to repeat his question from last night.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): It was the last question or series of questions of the day. I believe one was related to information on the Aides 2 that I would get in writing at some point, I believe. The very last one I believe was amortization of–I am not sure how it was worded exactly, but it had not appeared in previous budgets at least five years ago, four years ago, three years ago.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Highways and Transportation): If the member will allow, I think I would like my deputy just to–it is a technical question on the budgetary procedures. If the member will allow me, I will get my deputy to provide him with the answer.

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave for the deputy to answer the question? [agreed] In that case we are going to turn one mike around. It will be the Premier's mike that will be on.

Mr. Andrew Horosko (Deputy Minister, Highways and Transportation): The province is implementing a new accounting policy for tangible capital assets, and in fact this is the first year that it is being implemented. The capital assets is being implemented along the lines of the standards issued by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. These standards require that expenditures and tangible assets be amortized over the useful life of the asset, recognizing that amortization in this way allocates the cost of the capital asset basically as it is being consumed.

Mr. Jennissen: On a theoretical level I am enlightened, but I thank the deputy minister for that answer. I cannot pretend that I understand the exact nature of that–

Mr. Praznik: That is why I had him answer.

Mr. Jennissen: That is why the minister had the deputy minister–well, we know Deputy Minister Horosko is a very intelligent man, but could he perhaps maybe simplify it a little bit for me?

Mr. Praznik: I would agree wholeheartedly with my critic that I think the deputy minister should simplify it so both of us elected members can fully grasp the meaning and significance of his remarks.

Mr. Jennissen: I am not sure if we want to go that route. I mean, it may show the calibre of intelligence of elected members, but I am sure it was not meant in a negative way.

Mr. Praznik: No, it was in jest.

Mr. Chairperson: The deputy minister, to clarify his answer.

Mr. Horosko: If I may, it is the first year that we have implemented where we are recognizing the expensing of an asset over its useful life rather than when you buy it. Before, taking capital equipment as an example, if we purchased a grader, it would be expensed in the year that we purchased it. Now, under the new standards, we recognize a useful life for the grader, and we depreciate the grader on an amortized basis. What we are now showing is the annual amortized basis for that piece of equipment, and it is like for all of our tangible assets.

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, indeed, that made a lot of sense. I would like to, before we get into the booklet, the actual Estimates, ask a few more questions which relate to some of the material we discussed yesterday. I would like to return briefly to VIA Rail. We talked about passenger service and the poor quality of the passenger service. One thing I neglected to mention to the minister, and I am sure he is aware of it, but I will mention it now, is that some of those very small communities along the Bay Line, and I am thinking Thicket Portage, Pikwitonei and others and also Pukatawagan on the Sherridon line–those communities have problems with VIA hauling other goods, fish, for example, in Pukatawagan. Fishing is a very important industry for Pukatawagan, and as far as I know, VIA does nothing to make it easy for fishermen to haul fish. I am not sure if refrigerated cars are needed or whatever, but I am sure that, if VIA was really creative and wanted to be useful to the people of northern Manitoba who wanted to develop markets, it cannot just be passenger rail, there has to be a mixture of things.

For example, if I go to Pukatawagan again, there are basically two types of trains: an ore train that goes to Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting in Flin Flon, and a passenger train. Now how do you get your fish out? I know there are baggage cars and so on, but what I am saying is that VIA Rail should specialize a lot more in hauling commodities, particularly perishable commodities like fish. It may not be huge amounts, but they are very valuable to the small communities that this particular rail line serves. I would like the minister's point of view on this.

Mr. Praznik: The member asks an excellent question, and it underlines the point that I made yesterday, that for those of us who have had experience on northern railroads, whether it be local MLAs or former ministers of Northern Affairs, in those capacities we have seen the service level offered by the railroad, I should say the Canadian National and VIA, has been nowhere near adequate. In fact, even just travelling or meeting with people in those areas, you realize there are opportunities, and opportunities for the railroad to make money in moving freight, and there are potential customers, and why is that not working out?

* (1450)

I mean, adding an extra car to a train and arranging it so that you can take a full car and charging your costs plus your reasonable mark-up on it I am sure would work for everybody involved, but it just has not been done. And again my experience was, I know, one time having a delegation of parliamentarians from Europe coming through this area and their having an interest in taking a VIA train to Churchill, and trying to book it, it was like talking to a wall about the potential of putting on an extra car, even though there were enough passengers for one, an extra sleeping car–paying passengers from across the ocean. So just got nowhere with the VIA Rail people.

So what I would suggest that he do as local MLA, because there is an issue here, is that I would very much encourage him now to speak with people at OmniTRAX and the Hudson Bay Railway because I know that they are in the position of looking at how they are going to deal with the passenger service. As I said yesterday, in the discussions I have had with them in my previous life as a Northern Affairs minister, they wanted to concentrate first on taking over the line, dealing with the grain business, looking at other commercial freight that they could be bringing in. Eventually, they would be comfortable enough to examine what they wanted to do with the passenger service.

I would be delighted if the member would take the opportunity to contact their offices and arrange a meeting. In fact, my staff may even help facilitate that if that is necessary, and I think take those kinds of local issues, because when I meet with them, I convey them. I think that, as a local MLA, he should be doing that, which, I know, the member does in serving his constituents, and would like to do. I think we have to continue to speak to the new owners and encourage them to be taking over that passenger service and improving it–I think it is probably in their long-term plan–and being a conduit between the potential customers and potential suppliers.

Between the member and me, I think we could hammer away at VIA till the cows come home and to no avail. The real issue is to deal, I believe, with the OmniTRAX people, with the Hudson Bay rail company, who, I think, would be probably very interested in, as they take over the passenger rail service, should they decide to do that, solving this particular problem, which, to the member, I am sure, and to me, does not look like a very difficult problem to solve. Probably a little economic opportunity for the railroad to carry more freight, if you have a company that is interested in doing that. I believe that OmniTRAX, Hudson Bay Railway are, that VIA probably is not. So maybe we should be both spending our efforts encouraging OmniTRAX to be examining the rail service on their line with the purpose of taking over that service from VIA, expanding it and developing it into a very viable and expanded commercial tourist service end of their business.

Mr. Jennissen: That is a very good suggestion, and I look forward to lobbying together with the minister on that to make VIA a little bit more responsive to the needs of northern Manitoba. I think as well, if we are going to have meetings, it might be useful to have as many stakeholders at those meetings as possible, not just OmniTRAX or the minister and myself or his staff but also Chief Shirley Castel from Pukatawagan, some of the councillors, some of the mayors of the Bay Line communities and so on. I think together we could probably hammer out a pretty good blueprint of the direction we would like to go. Now, of course, if VIA refuses to play with us regardless of what we do, then that is another kettle of fish, but we will cross that bridge when we get there. Surely we could also enlist the aid of the M.P. of the region, Bev Desjarlais, to put a little pressure on VIA Rail.

I would like to go now to another issue we did raise yesterday. I would like to clear up some of those issues we dealt with yesterday or perhaps even the day before, and that was the Nunavut road. Apart from the Nunavut road, we had at one point also discussed a ring road which would have tremendous tourist potential for northwestern Manitoba. That road would go from Thompson, Leaf Rapids, Lynn Lake, Fox Lake, eventually past Granville Lake to Pukatawagan to Flin Flon. That would be utterly desirable but extremely expensive. I know we have talked about it many times before. At some point in the future, I think in a larger vision, we are going to have to look at that again.

I am not trying to resurrect that, which some call just a pipe dream, but there might be a cheaper–I will not call it an alternative, but it is something that has been raised with me by some of the people in Lynn Lake, particularly Alex Verbo, the economic development person in Lynn Lake, and that is connecting that end of 391 with Saskatchewan so that instead of going south back to Flin Flon, we would be heading into Saskatchewan. It would be much shorter, and perhaps the Saskatchewan government, because most of it would be in Saskatchewan, would certainly contribute an enormous amount of money to that, I hope, if they have that kind of money. It would be another way to say that this is not just a dead-end road, but it goes in a circle. Unfortunately, the circle would not be completed in Manitoba as we would like, but it would certainly for the people of Lynn Lake, Leaf Rapids and that region. They could complete the circle in the Saskatchewan portion of it. Have we done any kind of exploration, or have we had any kind of exploratory talks with Saskatchewan on the feasibility of that?

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I appreciate and I am always a believer in communities dreaming as to what their potential development opportunities are in the long run, because sometimes the stars cross and they happen. One should never stop dreaming or looking at these options. The difficulty is that the cost of such a road in that kind of really virgin terrain would be very, very expensive, and the economics, just like a Nunavut road, are hard-pressed against it. Even looking at our colleagues in Saskatchewan, when you look at their highway budget and the miles of road that they have to care for, in discussions I have had with Judy Bradley, their minister, they are as, if not more, cash-strapped than us for maintaining their existing road system. So, before we would endeavour to look at a completion of that ring, there would be other priorities.

I also share with him, as well, that if one looks at the map in terms of accessing northern Manitoba, there is a very large piece of northern Manitoba here which is only serviced by the winter road system. One of the projects in which we have included some money for the feasibility studies in this year's budget is the northeastern road. That is coming together not because we are just saying we are going to invest the money to build that road, but because there are a number of partners for which the economics of that road are starting to become feasible. For example, the Pine Falls Paper Company is looking at doing a fairly significant expansion in its operation which would include the creation of up to three sawmills to better use a diversified forest to be producing lumber, using the chips for paper as opposed to their current practice of chipping whole logs. They are looking at an almost $200-million potential expansion of their mill, the addition of a further paper machine. That creates a very potential user.

Manitoba Hydro has reached the point where any further development of northern hydroelectric capacity–if we look at a plant like Conawapa, and I have had the privilege of touring that site, Conawapa is probably one of the most environmentally friendly hydroelectric projects to develop, simply because very little flooding comes with that project. To build that project, and as the demand for power in North America increases and our market opportunities grow, if that dam becomes a possibility, we will require, as a province, a third bipole line to bring that power south to market. Quite frankly, as a security measure, having two bipoles coming through the Interlake, we saw what happened during that big windstorm a couple of years ago when we lost both bipoles, the place I would advocate for is that third bipole to come on the east side of the lake, again, as a security measure against losing all bipole capacity through one storm. So Manitoba Hydro has an interest in a roadway that would service a bipole construction and maintenance project.

The First Nations communities, although they have some very legitimate concerns about how they would benefit from a road, ensuring that they maximize their potential from one, ultimately there are a host of communities there that have no all-year road access. That, with the issues that they have raised to work out, becomes a very desirable project, and a federal government, which is spending significant money in resupply today for those communities, would see that eased with an all-weather road and result in savings that could help pay for one, just as we used that same principle in bringing electricity to the number of communities in the northeast hydroelectric line that we put in some years ago which the member is familiar with.

So what we see happening in that are a number of economic factors coming together that are starting to say: this road now may be feasible. We are not there yet. We are not in the ground on it yet, but we are certainly moving in that direction. I would say to the member that the same kind of forces have to come together to see this Flin Flon-Lynn Lake link happen, some significant exploration or mining development, you know, some significant things happening in that area that start to change the issues around it.

I appreciate that one of the factors is already there, the supplying of a number of communities that are not serviced by a road, like Brochet, Lac Brochet, others. So there are some of those factors. Some more have to develop. I would say to him, as the local member, just as with this northeastern road–it is not in my constituency; it is in the district of the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), but certainly in my corner of the province–we should both, with respect to these, be diligently looking for the kind of forces that can come together to make a project like that possible. So I would not discourage him.

* (1500)

I think once we see some of those forces come together–those forces may be ones not even within our jurisdiction. They may, in fact, be forces of things happening in northeastern Saskatchewan that may see their need to develop a road network farther north that we could link to. Surely to goodness if they were getting pretty close to the Manitoba border around Lynn Lake, it would not be a far stretch to say we would certainly look at completing that linkage. It would make eminently good sense.

So I would suggest to him in his work as a local MLA that he may want to do some groundwork. I would even be prepared to provide a letter of introduction to him, indicating that he has my support in talking with some of the communities in eastern Saskatchewan that border to get a lay of the land as to what is happening there. I would be most supportive of him doing that, and the member and I have always had a good working relationship, because it is so much a local issue to the Flin Flon constituency. I would be prepared to provide a letter of support, introduction, et cetera, saying that we are working on this and that he is doing it, not just as a local MLA, but certainly with the concurrence and support of the Ministry of Highways.

If we are able to see those forces come together, then we certainly would be prepared to look at the kind of feasibility study process that we are now looking for in the northeast. So the same criteria and standards that I am using in northeastern Manitoba, I would be very pleased to apply to this part of northwestern Manitoba. As the local member, we would be most pleased to work with him in doing some of the preliminary groundwork to keep advancing this project.

The last point I make is never give up hope on it, because 10 years ago the discussion of a northeast road moving up towards, you know, Berens River and Poplar River and eventually to Island Lake, when I first raised it, I would not say laughed at, but it was like "pipe dream city." I am in Health for two years, immersed in those issues, I come back to an economic development portfolio, and I am finding that this road is moved to the point where we are now looking at conceptual design and assessment of it. So in a very short period of time forces did come together that took what was just a dream and started to maybe put some reality around it that at least leads to the next stage. I think that is probably exactly the case here.

I do tell one that did not work out so well at this stage was the linkage of Lac du Bonnet to Red Lake in Ontario, and although the former Rae government when the New Democrats there were in opposition had promised the local mayor, I suspect after a great deal of lobbying on his part at an NDP convention, I think the New Democrats passed a resolution supporting the project. When they were in government I think they realized the great cost of putting a road from Red Lake to the Manitoba border where we already have a road at Werner Lake and opted for the completion of the Kenora by-pass project. I understand those kinds of priorities and usage, the kind of economic demands that would have, or economic opportunities that would have resulted in that road linkage being done by Ontario just quite frankly did not exist, but the idea is still alive. We keep it alive and someday, who knows, we may find some significant mineral deposits east of Werner Lake, and that might result in eventually that road linkage being done. So I think the member sees where I am coming from, and I am prepared if he just gives the signal we will do the letter and we will support him in doing the groundwork area as a local MLA.

Mr. Jennissen: Well, I thank the minister for that, and I think maybe a good place to start would be if his department or staff in his department would contact Mr. Alex Verbo, who is the economic development officer in Lynn Lake. He has done quite a bit of groundwork on this already and has quite a bit of information and perhaps we could push that thrust, that exploratory thrust, in developing plans that could eventually lead to such a road. I would really welcome that.

I also note, and I am sure the minister is fully aware of it, that some of those impossible dreams of the past actually came true, and in fact the minister had referenced the Alaska Highway. You know, that was necessitated for military reasons, but when you take a look at our neighbouring provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, those road networks really do go far north. In the case of Alberta, it is Fort McMurray, I believe and perhaps even further north. Now again, maybe it was tar sands or the oil sands that necessitated that. La Ronge and points even further north in Saskatchewan, again perhaps even uranium mining or minerals or logging or whatever the thrust was, it is theoretically possible. It is being done in other provinces and has been done. I know it is not immediately on the drawing board, but I am saying we cannot forget about it and I thank the minister for at least saying, let us keep the dream alive. It may be impossible today but it may not be tomorrow.

I would like to switch now and finish up a few things before we really get into the Estimates booklet, and one of the questions I have, looking at some of the earlier Estimates, going back actually to 1986-87, I noticed that salary years, I presume that was the term used, SY was approximately $2,590-point-something and today when we are talking FTEs which I assume or hope are roughly equivalent, that is 1999-2000, the number is $2,190. If you subtract the lower number from the higher, you come up with minus $400, which then would mean since 1986-87, roughly 12 years we have lost 400 jobs. Is that correct? And is that attributable purely to technology and computers and so on, or is it an erosion that is too much too fast? I know it has halted now but it certainly concerns me that it is a lot of jobs less than we used to have.

Mr. Praznik: But, Mr. Chair, as the member appreciates, as a new minister coming into his portfolio–I have only been here a few months–those changes in our staffing complement have occurred over a number of years. I think they may have been discussed in previous Estimates. If the member would indulge me again the small privilege with leave, Mr. Horosko could probably go through that with him and just rather than have him tell me and me explain it to the member, which takes more time. Also, I think in the interest of accuracy, it will be much more clear. Then I will deal with the policy issues that may come out of that.

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave for the deputy minister to answer that question? [agreed]

Mr. Horosko: There are quite a number of items that have occurred since 1986-87 to the present that have affected the change in manpower. I have only been here since '92, but a large part of that came since '92 as well. There have been reorganizations. Our land surveys unit, which was in the Highways department, was reorganized and moved to Natural Resources. Air Services, which was in the Department of Highways–I do not have the numbers–that was a fair chunk of staff years or full-time equivalents, which is the FTEs, moved from our department to Government Services.

There have been, as you have indicated, some changes as a result of technology. We have also reduced some of the numbers of departmental positions that we have had in our construction program. We found that we could deliver the program without having that many full-time equivalents on our books. In fact, they were there, but they did not necessarily have people attached to them.

We have had some reorganizations within the department that have led to greater efficiency and effectiveness. So we have had, as part of the regionalization in '92-93, a significant reduction there. We have gone through a review, taking a look at how we can serve the highway system better. We have had some reductions in the kilometres of highways that we have maintained. We have had the 3,000 kilometres of highways that were given back to the municipal level a number of years ago. So it is an accumulation of all of those items that would lead to the number being 400. Actual staff reductions or layoffs in the department have been fairly minimal. We have had position reductions, but we have not had that many layoffs, certainly not in the hundreds number.

Mr. Jennissen: Would the deputy minister have a rough idea of how many of those 400s would be Engineering Aide 2?

Mr. Horosko: We are trying to come up with a rough estimate, but the rough estimate would be around 75 were Engineering Aide 2. There were over 100 Engineering Aides 2 which we had converted from full time to part time, but a number of those continue to work full time. We feel it is about 75, plus or minus. In the written information that we will be providing on the Engineering Aides 2, we will have that number detailed definitively for you.

* (1510)

Mr. Jennissen: Yesterday or the day before, the minister talked about all the taxes we collect and gasoline. I presume the motive fuel tax, some $223 million go to highways. We could argue that, right? The federal portion, which is, what, 10 cents a litre, virtually none of that comes back. When the minister talks about dedicated fuel tax, he is talking about taking that 10 cents from the federal government, if that lucky day should ever happen. Would that be virtually entirely for new projects and building new roads or would this also be for maintenance, because I presume that some tax money can be used in a sexy or in an unsexy way? I think the feds are concerned about it being spent in an unsexy way, it is not appealing for them. Perhaps we would have to address that situation as well.

Mr. Praznik: My deputy advises me that even maintenance after a while becomes sexy, depending on what road you are on. There are a number in the North where I am sure just better maintenance would be welcome.

An Honourable Member: Especially when you are over 50.

Mr. Praznik: My colleague the member for Riel says particularly when you are over 50 that maintenance becomes very sexy.

First of all, the concept that we are talking about, and the member asked some very good questions that lead, I think, and I apologize for the length of my answer, but I think it leads to the really kind of policy questions that need to be resolved in this debate if this is ever going to happen.

In the case of Manitoba, there is about $147 million raised in gasoline tax. So assuming we maintain the same gas rate, gas tax rate, that $147 million would allow us to move our capital budget up to the $180 million to $200 million per year, which is what we need, I think, for major projects, certainly not new projects in terms of building new roads–that would be some of it–but doing the kind of projects of upgrading, maintaining, repaving our existing road system that needs to be done. We would have some money in there to improve our regular maintenance program. By the way, when we resurface a road, that is a capital improvement program in our capital budget. That is not a maintenance program. Maintenance is where we do the patching basically.

So we would also want to enhance our maintenance program that allows us to do better dust control on gravel roads, patching where we need it, upgrading some of our, you know, the kind of regular maintenance work we need to do to maintain our road system. There would also be a significant portion, $20 million, $30 million, whatever, of that that could go to municipalities that would give them a pool of dollars with which to, I would think, be able to work on their municipal roads that are not residential roads. I think we all have agreed that the residential street that is serving the homeowner, the subdivision road, et cetera, should be borne by local taxation. But the kind of roads that are carrying commerce and trade, the municipal feeder roads that really are collecting off those residential roads and taking them into the highway system or to communities, in the case of the city of Winnipeg, there are TAC. There are major truck routes through the city. Those are roads with a provincial or even national significance in the transportation system.

So that is where I sort of see things where that money would be spent. I think it would give us an adequate amount of money to do a very good job. You could not do it all at once. We would have to probably phase it in over a number of years, because I do not think the feds could give up that revenue realistically overnight, nor could the construction industry gear up to spend it. So it might be a five-, six-year phase-in, but at least we would come to that objective.

Now, what I have advocated is that the national government, as part of this debate, does not need to abandon the tax room or turn over the money. I think, in fact, the member has hit upon it quite correctly. What is politically sexy to a provincial government may not be to a national government, may not fulfill national objectives in transportation. So I have advocated that I think it is critical the national government still be there as part of the decision-making process in prioritizing with the provinces roadways of national significance. What does that mean? Well, in Manitoba I would envision that to be obviously the Trans-Canada Highway. The Trans-Canada Highway should be a four-lane, divided highway right across the nation.

The Yellowhead route from where it intersects with the Trans-Canada just to the west of Portage la Prairie right probably to Edmonton, the way the traffic is increasing on that road it is certainly a candidate for four laning right through the west as a northern Trans-Canada, in essence, as a major artery of commerce.

Highway 75 has been four laned, but Highway 59 south from Manitoba's perspective would be also a highway I think of national significance in terms of it was also proven in the '97 flood to be above the kind of elevations of that flood of the century, whereas Highway 75 was closed, but 59 south, you know, again is another one of our southern Canada to the U.S. border trade routes that we need to develop to move our commerce into the marketplace, so, again, fundamental.

I have also said roads of national significance are those that would take people from southern Canada to the North, you know, a road like Highway 6 up to Thompson, for example, and branching out from there. Any road that eventually would go to Churchill and Nunavut would be a road, I would believe, of national significance. The highway system that eventually goes to Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories, again, would be a highway of national significance. So the federal government, I believe, has a role to say if we are contributing our gas tax to these pools. How one would have to work it out in dedicating tax would probably be to establish some sort of trust, have certain percentages of call on that trust by different levels of government, some decision-making process, but we would agree to be spending dollars on identifying projects of significance to do over a long period of time.

This is the way at least I kind of conceptually envision it, and that the gas tax would go into that. We would make decisions with our federal partners, whether or not that is adequate, whether it is more than we need, and the gas tax could be adjusted from time to time based on the needs of our transportation system. The benefit to this kind of model is that the national government is there to protect the national interest, that is, to make sure we have a national road network, that we are not balkanized, that we are not 10 separate provinces each doing our own politically sexy thing and find out that we are not connecting our roadways or we are not developing our roadways of national significance.

Secondly, from the consumers' point of view, they know that if the road system needs more money, I think it becomes more acceptable to see an increase of a penny a litre, for example, even if it is on a temporary basis, to pay for a project that needs being done, knowing that it will come off, knowing that that revenue is not going into general revenue supporting other things, that dollars raised on the road system are going back into the road system. If our road system is running well and we are raising more than we need, they could rightfully expect a decrease of a penny or whatever a litre to ensure from that system. But the public, I think, would then be connected as users of the road system, payers of the system, with the decisions that are being made. I certainly would not want to push the national government out of that scenario because they need to be there to guarantee that we the provinces are building a national road system.

So that is kind of the way I envision it, rather than what we have now, which are 10 and three territorial road networks, no federal money, federal collection of tax, off-the-road system with, in most provinces and territories, no contribution back, and really very limited planning in terms of a national road network.

So, Mr. Chair, it is an interesting concept. I hope I have the opportunity to develop it further with partners across the country. Today I am kind of an advocate of it and perhaps thinking a little bit out loud, but we have to get this debate rolling at the national level if we are in fact going to be able to secure a sustainable future for our road infrastructure.

So those are my thoughts. I apologize for the long answer, but the member is on to a developing topic. By the way, I would appreciate even his thoughts on this because it is certainly now the time to be developing concepts and ideas that we can advance across the country.

* (1520)

Mr. Jennissen: It is very interesting, and in fact if the minister does not mind, today I received a blurb, I guess it is, a little newsletter from the Yellowhead Highway Association. In fact much of what they are saying in this resolution is material you and I have discussed. I would just like to read that last portion perhaps. It is on the national highway system: Now therefore be it resolved that the Yellowhead Highway Association reaffirm its support for a national highways policy, standards and program which includes–and there are seven items here: (a) a co-operative federal-provincial-territorial approach; (b) a system of designated highways; (c) a set of minimum standards for the highways; (d) dedicated long-term funding sources not subject to annual budget decisions; (e) funding sources related to roadway use such as fuel tax; (f) a standard formula for allocation of federal funds to provinces and territories; and, lastly, (g) a standard formula for cost-sharing construction and renovation of the highways to the agreed minimum standards.

So they are not thinking in terms very much different from what we have discussed, I would suggest to the minister.

Mr. Praznik: If I may, I had the honour of speaking to them just a few weeks ago, and the discussions we have had here formed the basis of my speech. What I found was they were delighted to have a Minister of Highways from somewhere in Canada talking about dedicated fuel taxes and that need. I asked them to consider it within their organization and to give us their response. I have not seen that newsletter yet but, again, just seeing how an idea is ripe for consideration. As an advocate of an improved national highway system, our thinking, because no one person owns these ideas, is meshing quite nicely again, and it is part of building the support to get into that national debate. I am not talking just about debate in parliament, but in a real public discussion I think one will find that the majority of Canadians see this as the way to go.

Mr. Jennissen: Just to go back for a moment again to the earlier, larger, vision about northwestern Manitoba and the possible ring road that links Lynn Lake and so on to Flin Flon, I do recall that in the Northern Economic Development Commission, which cost this province $1 million and I think which has been shelved and largely ignored and has been gathering dust ever since, they did recommend that road. In other words, there have been some good studies done in the past, and the material is there, but it is a little bit like the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. There are a lot of good recommendations there, but they are not necessarily being implemented. Possibly lack of money is the chief barrier, but there is an election coming up, and we were hoping that maybe some of those grander visions would emerge. Eventually, I think they will have to.

I want to leave that larger debate behind now and ask one quick question before we get into the Estimates booklet. That is, some of my colleagues, more than I, and my colleagues in the city, received letters from people talking about mandatory helmets for people riding bicycles. I do not know how popular that is. Certainly it would not be terribly popular in the North. But I just wonder if the minister has any thoughts on that issue. It certainly is a safety issue.

Mr. Praznik: I notice the member talks about it not being popular in the North. I would tend to concur. There are probably some areas in the province where, even within the city of Winnipeg, it would not be popular, for very practical reasons. For many parents, they just do not have the money to be able to afford the helmets for their four or five children. They just do not have the cash necessarily to buy them. They look at the risk factors of living in a community with very little road traffic. Risk factors are low; cost is high. It is an important issue.

I do not think there is one parent that I have ever met who is not concerned about their children riding bicycles, or as adults riding bicycles and suffering a head injury. As a former Minister of Health, I have dealt with people involved with head injuries, head injuries associations, and I appreciate so fully the risks and the need to prevent head injuries.

In looking at this issue, I am not saying today that I in my own mind, or in government as a policy, have made a decision one way or another on this, but it is something I am looking at as minister. One of the interesting statistics that I have seen internally was that we estimate that about 40 percent of bicycle users are now helmeted, wear helmets. I think it is about 40 percent. In the jurisdictions that have compulsory helmet use, they are at about 65 percent, if I remember correctly. Now one would say, yes, that is a significant increase, but as law makers this is one of the issues that we have to address: is a 65 percent compliance a good rate? It means that 35 percent of users in those jurisdictions are flouting the law. Now maybe they are flouting it because they cannot afford to comply. So I have always been a great believer as a legislator that if we bring in a law we should have the means by which to enforce the law so that we are at, you know, 95 percent or 98 percent or preferably 100 percent compliance. So there is that issue. Is this an effective way to get helmet use up? Well, it is more effective to me what we are doing today. Are there other more effective ways?

Well, one of the challenges I have, I have seen some of the local newspapers in Winnipeg take up this issue. There has been some press coverage and media on it recently. You know, maybe one of the things we should be encouraging–I am going to put this challenge out when I deal with the media on it, perhaps later today or tomorrow; I know I have a reporter who wants to talk to me about it–is maybe we need to see in the case of the city of Winnipeg a newspaper or some public organization take it on themselves to set up a kind of helmet exchange program of some sort, that people whose kids are growing up and the helmets do not fit anymore, they have outgrown them, can then donate them into the pool, and we can get those helmets out to needy kids, like we do with skates and other things. That might be a very effective tool.

I am thinking in northern Manitoba and poorer communities, and in parts of Winnipeg that are poorer communities, this might be a very good way as well. It really needs a public sponsor to take it on as a cause. So to those media outlets who have been getting into this issue, I am going to put out the challenge to them to be part of the solution with us to maybe sponsoring that kind of helmet exchange on an ongoing basis so that we can collect the helmets that have outgrown kids and get them into the hands of poor kids. Now that might change the numbers as well.

Secondly, let us look at risk and enforcement together. One of the questions that I am kind of debating in my own mind how we do this is perhaps if we do bring in legislation or regulation around this area, perhaps we should look at the highest risk areas first, because they may in fact be the easiest to enforce. I am thinking of cyclists who use provincial trunk highways, busy roadways where the risk of being knocked off your bicycle and suffering a head injury is greatest, perhaps the type of legislation that would say, if you are on a provincial trunk highway, you are cycling, you are required to have a helmet, because that is so much easier to enforce. We have regular police travelling those highways, et cetera, looking for motorists and speeders. This could be a ticketable offence.

In low-risk areas where the risk is much less, I am thinking about certain residential streets and subdivisions, low traffic, low-speed traffic, et cetera. Again, I have not assessed this. I am doing a lot of thinking out loud as a result of the member's question, perhaps a different regime there. But obviously being able to just pass a law without doing some other things and getting only a 65 percent response, my guess is, and again I do not have anything to back this up, but there are a lot of poor families out there who are not providing the helmets for the kids. The kids are still on their bikes, and are the police going to do? Come and arrest them, ticket them, ticket their parents? Do we have the enforcement capability?

It is a complex issue and one that I am looking at. I am hoping that when we can resolve some of these things and perhaps someone will accept my challenge that I hope to be making through the media to the media to do the helmet exchange, perhaps all of these things can come together and we can make some advance on this.

But it is good practice to be cycling with a helmet. I have two daughters myself. They have helmets. We try to insist that they wear them. Even dad, who just bought a new bike, has to go and buy a helmet as well.

Mr. Jennissen: It is an interesting statistic that in those jurisdictions where bike helmets are mandatory there is only a 65 percent compliance. Just wondering though about seat belt usage, what is the percentage of compliance there? Do we have any figures on that? I know it is much higher, but I am wondering what the exact percentage is.

* (1530)

Mr. Praznik: My staff advise me, we estimate it is probably somewhere close to 90 percent. Again, I think the enforcement perhaps is easier because you are dealing with adults driving a car on public roadways. You have regular checks of police for speeding and other things as part of our road network. Is it as easy to do that with bicycles? That becomes a law enforcement issue and the availability of staff. But seat belts, I remember the old debate around seat belts when it was brought in. Many opposed it. I must admit to you that both my father and I were a little concerned about the infringement on our freedom to buckle up or not. But I can remember, I was in my teenage years at the time, the day it became law, my dad and I looking at each other. We got in the van. We were going somewhere on the farm. We both went over and we buckled up. We did it, and we have done it ever since. My family are pretty avid seat belt users. It has proven to be a good law.

I am not saying this helmet law does not have the potential of doing the same thing. What concerns me is the 65 percent compliance, use of law enforcement, how do we do it? One difference is, every car has seat belts. Every bicycle is not sold with a helmet. A real practical matter, if we are going to address this, is getting something in place that can see particularly poor families with a large number of kids being able to access conveniently helmets, because it is going to be very hard when you have a 12-, 13-year-old on their bike in the backlane or on the rural road in a small northern community with limited traffic, you know, the RCMP pulling into town and charging some kid a $50 fine for not wearing a helmet. It is not impossible, but I think we have to do a few things.

My guess is that in the not-too-distant future, this will work its way into our law books, something I am certainly considering. I think it is probably one that is easier to do than say graduated licensing, probably have more affect. How do we deal with that access to bike helmets for kids whose families cannot afford them? That is something I would like to see happen and challenge I want to put out to the media.

Mr. Jennissen: Mr. Chair, I wonder if we could get started on line by line.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Yes, we can, if you allow the Chairman to get out his glasses.

Item 15.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $488,300–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $89,000–pass.

15.1.(c) Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $425,800–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $264,900–pass.

15.1.(d) Financial Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $674,900–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $214,800–pass.

15.1.(e) Human Resource Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $828,300–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $337,100–pass.

15.1.(f) Computer Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,791,400–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $591,300–pass.

15.1.(g) Occupational Health and Safety (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $156,100.

Mr. Jennissen: Under the Activity Identification–conducts worksite inspections and environmental monitoring. How many worksite inspections would occur in a year and on a typical year?

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, the member may have a series of questions on specific details of how this works. If he would indulge, again, I will have my staff just provide the factual information, and I will deal with the policy issues. It would just save the up and down.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Is there leave for the staff to provide the information? There is leave, seeing no opposition. Is staff going to provide the information directly?

Floor Comment: Specifically, the number of worksite inspections, I do not have that information available right now, but I could get back to you on that one with the specific number of worksites. We do have Workplace Safety and Health officers in each one of the regions, and part of their ongoing duties is to in fact go to worksites and do inspections to ensure that the training, the flagging is being done to our standards and that the contractors are maintaining the work environment. To give you a specific number of worksite inspections that we have completed in the last year, I do not have that specifically. I would suspect that there are quite a few of them, because that is an ongoing function of the Workplace Safety and Health officer.

Mr. Jennissen: Does this involve dealing with machinery and extremely loud noises and injury to hearing as well? This would be a concern?

Floor Comment: We also do audiometric testing. Last year, we conducted 624 hearing tests for our employees as well as contractors and to check for the hearing impairment.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): 15.1. Administration and Finance (g) Occupational Health and Safety (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $156,100–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $65,300–pass.

15.1.(h) French Language Services Secretariat (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $187,700–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $29,800 –pass.

15.2. Highways and Transportation Programs (a) Management Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $371,300.

Mr. Jennissen: I wonder if we could clarify one little footnote there: "Vacant clerical position eliminated due to consolidation of duties." Exactly what does that mean?

Mr. Praznik: It is a very technical matter, I am advised. My deputy is going to just explain it to me. He might as well just explain it to the committee.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): I recognize the deputy minister.

Mr. Horosko: What that means is the duties of the clerical position have been assumed by other positions in the staff complement, so the work has gone to the remaining folks there, and this position is eliminated.

Mr. Jennissen: I guess I am at a loss somewhat to explain why that would happen. Was that job not needed then? Surely that person held the job before.

Mr. Horosko: Quite a number of things are constantly changing around the workplace. Again, technology issues, reorganization issues. What we found is that, in looking at trying to make our operation as effective as possible, with those changes and with the reorganization and technology, we could do away with the position at this time. It is not to say that the position was not needed in prior years; it is just that, with advancements in technology and changes in workflow, we have been able to do away with it.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Item 15.2 (a) Management Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $371,300–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $56,000–pass.

15.2.(b) Operations and Contracts (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,776,200–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $572,100–pass.

15.2.(c) Bridges and Structures (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,057,100.

* (1540)

Mr. Jennissen: Regarding bridges and structures, I remember the former minister pointing out how expensive it is to build bridges. They are a significant part of the total budget, and I understand that. The question I have is not perhaps directly related to the Highways department in a sense; it is the flood agreements that the province has struck with various bands across the province. I am at a loss to understand just where that is.

I know in the case of Cross Lake, with the flood agreement, a bridge was promised. I think it was in the courts. I am not sure exactly what the status of that is. I know with regard to South Indian Lake, I do not think the bridge was promised, but certainly a road was promised. Whether that would eventually fall under the jurisdiction of this department with flood money being provided by the government, I do not know how that works.

But, at any rate, not much seems to be happening, and I was just wondering if the minister could give us a little update on bridges that would be needed eventually at South Indian Lake, Cross Lake, for sure, and Norway House, hopefully, at some point as well.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I spent, it seemed, a long portion of my political life involved in the Northern Flood Agreement in my days as Minister of Northern Affairs. The Northern Flood Agreement–just by way of a little bit of background to appreciate this–was negotiated, I guess, by the Schreyer government in the late 1970s. It was designed to compensate for damage done to five First Nations communities by the construction of a series of hydroelectric dams, I think the South Indian Lake diversion, et cetera, the Churchill River diversion, the creation of South Indian Lake reservoir and the like.

The agreement was entered into, actually legally entered into, by the cabinet of Premier Sterling Lyon, following the 1977 election. What came out of it was that particular Northern Flood Agreement had what was called a claim-by-claim process so each community or individual governed by it would put forward a claim. It would be reviewed by Hydro, negotiated; ultimately if an agreement could not be made, go to an arbitrator, and it was a very, very lengthy process. It was based on basically individual claims for damage, either by a community or by individuals.

By the time that we came to power after the 1988 election, it was very evident to the then Minister of Northern Affairs, the current member for the Arthur-Virden constituency, that the process was leading to a huge amount of frustration that none of the five, very few claims in fact had been settled. There were all kinds of arguments whether it was a legitimate claim, whether it was not. There were things before the arbitrator. There were lots of people advising and making good money as consultants and the like in that system with very little compensation or benefit coming to the communities involved. I believe that that minister proposed to the communities that, listen, why do we not do something different? Why do we not try to have an implementation agreement because the Northern Flood Agreement, as cast and everyone had signed off on, just was not working at resolving the issues and let us look at resolving a host of these issues in block by settling with the community on a block basis, because time had passed already. Many of the people who had been adversely affected were considerably older now; their needs had changed–so that we would have these implementation settlements done. Certain things, of course, would be ongoing liabilities, but for most of them the rights to settlement under the original Northern Flood would be extinguished in return for this master settlement with the community.

That member got into negotiations and I think the first one that he completed was Split Lake, if I am not mistaken, and I know had negotiated with, I believe it was Nelson House and York Landing, and when I became Minister of Northern Affairs following a cabinet shuffle, I was the minister who signed on behalf of the province for York Landing and Nelson House. By the way, each of those settlement agreements saw an act come to Parliament and to the House of Commons basically extinguishing other rights under the Northern Flood because they had been replaced with the Northern Floods Implementation Agreements. Each of those communities had to vote on it and go through a referendum and it was done. As minister, I actually set up a principal's table with both Cross Lake and Norway House to come up with the same settlements. I was pleased to indicate that we reached agreement while I was minister at Norway House and when I departed to be replaced by the current member for Riel as minister, the Norway House agreement was in the ratification process and he signed that agreement on behalf of the province.

Regrettably Cross Lake, where we had concluded an agreement with the then Chief and Council, when it went back to the community for ratification, in my view you had many, many outside forces get involved in it and other agendas. At the end of the day it was rejected in the community and of course the option of not having an implementation agreement meant that those communities went back to the original Northern Flood with a claim-by-claim process. So for four of the five Northern Flood communities, their implementation agreement has been placed, ratified, signed off. Benefits are flowing and those communities are getting on with life. Cross Lake, in failing to implement, which was their choice, or ratify I should say, in failing to ratify the agreement that was reached between all the parties and their community, returned to the Northern Flood Agreement and the claim-by-claim process.

Now, with respect to the bridges, because these are governed by these particular areas, at South Indian Lake, their access issue is completion of a road access with a ferry, a small portion of it, which was the economic way to go, and I understand we are moving on that project. We are right now with the Department of Northern Affairs negotiating with Manitoba Hydro for the funding to be able to do that, because again this is part of the compensation issues with that community which is a Northern Affairs community and moving into reserve status and not part of the Northern Flood Agreement per se. We hope that can be resolved in such a manner that we can begin construction this year.

With respect to the Cross Lake issue, there has been a number of arbitrations. The commitment under the original Northern Flood was for an all-weather access which we originally believed was offered by the road ferry and ice bridge system. That has gone to arbitration. There have been a number of appeals on that particular issue. I believe there are still a number of negotiations going on internally as to how that will be addressed and funded. Obviously, it is an issue that the Department of Highways in both cases is the party that will deliver these projects. It is a question of how they are funded. The legal compulsion to build it, in essence, comes under the old Northern Flood Agreement and their arbitration process.

Mr. Jennissen: With regard to South Indian Lake, I am still not entirely clear about the ferry versus the bridge. You know those are two arguments. I know a ferry would be cheaper in the short run. Some of the elders tell me that in the original flood agreement, I cannot pretend that I have actually found that in that agreement, it called for a bridge, because if it is not a bridge then it is not really an all-weather road, at least, during breakup in the spring and freeze up in the fall. I just want to clarify it once and for all whether that actually was in the agreement that there should be a bridge.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, my staff seem to believe there was a commitment, that the commitment at South Indian Lake may be in the Northern Flood Agreement. It is something we should check. I understand that the next in line for Estimates in the Chamber is the Department of Northern Affairs where the minister, if I could get his attention for a moment, I think that question should rightly be put to him about whether or not it is contained in the original Northern Flood, the commitment to South Indian Lake. He will endeavour to have the answer to that question in his Estimates, which I know the member for Flin Flon will want to attend as well, given his interest in northern issues. [interjection]

* (1550)

Mr. Praznik: Yes, there goes your Saturday. With respect to the issue of a bridge versus ferry, I understand that the community was consulted about this, that there is a resolution from them supporting the road and ferry. My deputy looks to me as if there were some issues around whether a bridge could even be constructed in that area. There were some issues. He raises this to me because of the fast-flowing nature of the water, the need to build a causeway in terms of construction, environmental approvals. It may in fact be a very difficult bridge to build, if it could be built at all. So this was part of the discussions that I am advised took place and that there was a support in the community for the road and ferry.

Mr. Jennissen: Did I understand the minister correctly to say a little while ago that the actual road from where the South Bay ferry now goes, from South Bay to South Indian Lake, that road under the flood agreement will eventually be built around the lake and then the ferry? I have asked that question I think every year since 1995, and I get the answer that there is some kind of surveying being done, some kind of preliminary work, but five years later now I really want to know: is that road on the go or is that still in the surveying stage?

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I am going to ask the deputy to answer what exactly has been done in this area for the technical detail, and I will deal with the policy issue.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Is there agreement in the House to let the honourable deputy minister answer? [agreed]

Mr. Horosko: Yes, indeed, the surveys are largely complete, and we are ready to start with the road. There are three pieces to the road. First, there is a need to upgrade the road, the Ruttan Lake road, which is the existing road, and then there is the need to construct the road from that point around to just across from the community, and then there is also a section of road on the community side. We are ready, subject to funding, to start, and we would start with the first piece, upgrading the Ruttan Lake road. Perhaps, if funding was there, we would clear the right-of-way for the next stage. Yes, we are set.

Mr. Jennissen: If I understand the deputy minister correctly, we are talking about funding the road from Ruttan, the South Bay road, they call it. That would be the first part; the second part would be building the road around the lake across from the community; the third part would be that little spur from the lake to the community itself; and then the fourth part would be the ferry itself, I presume. Is that right?

Mr. Horosko: Yes, that is correct. I broke the road up into three phases. In fact, the ferry would be started as a concurrent activity in that process just to get the naval architect on board and to have the vessel designed and ready for being operational when the road is complete.

Mr. Jennissen: The portion, the first portion on the 391 to South Bay, the Ruttan road, there is funding in place for the upcoming year, correct? I believe 400-and-some thousand dollars.

Mr. Horosko: We have funding for basically the engineering activities associated with the construction, and that is what the $400,000 is there for. That is not sufficient dollars to actually do the construction.

Mr. Jennissen: If I could ask the minister about the status, the possible status, I guess, of a bridge to Norway House. I believe that is feasible as well. I have never ever heard anyone talk about it, but I am sure it is possible.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, that particular issue is there. It is a project that, of course, we would like to do some day. We do not have the dollars in place today, so we have not had even the design work done. But I can tell the member, on many of these questions, if we are able to see an infrastructure kind of ongoing sustainable program that we have talked about in terms of dedicating fuel taxes, these are some of the kinds of expansion projects of our road network that certainly would have to be considered in that kind of mix. So, again, you know, there are so many of these projects that I would like to see done as Minister of Highways, and this is certainly one of them into Norway House. That is why it is important that we continue to advocate to see the dedicated tax and the flow of those dollars so that we can get on with doing these kinds of projects.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): 15.2. Highways and Transportation Programs (c) Bridges and Structures (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,057,100–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $337,200–pass.

15.2.(d) Transportation Safety and Regulatory Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,753,900.

Mr. Jennissen: Under Transportation Safety and Regulatory Services, particularly trucking. I happened to receive a little mailout from a trucking organization, and they were pointing out some interesting things about Manitoba trucking, things that we had already believed, but I did not actually have the details. They are pointing out things, such as that there are approximately 600 for-hire trucking companies headquartered in Manitoba; that 95 percent of goods moved within Manitoba depend on trucks, which certainly surprises me because I think the overall percentage nationwide is about 65 percent and points out that our railroads could be carrying a lot more, although I do not know about the accuracy of the statistic, but I presume it is accurate; that for-hire trucking directly and indirectly contributes $890 million of Manitoba's GDP; that the industry employs 19,000 people or 3 percent of the Manitoba labour force, and so on. Those are very important statistics and impressive statistics. That is why I am somewhat saddened that some of the larger trucking companies are no longer headquartered here for whatever reason, Reimer being one of those companies.

The thing that makes me wonder, though, is that we did not really make a big to-do about National Trucker Appreciation Week which I believe is May 31 to June 6. I am wondering, from the minister's perspective, whether it would not be a good idea to either make a ministerial statement or–I hate to use gimmicks because we get plants in front of us, like pots with trees growing in them from the Minister of Environment and so on, but there must be a way we can highlight this rather important industry to Manitoba.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, as I believe that date was at the latter part of May, I would be delighted to take the member up on that offer as minister next year to ensure that we are more participatory in that particular day and would be delighted to use that as an opportunity for a ministerial statement next year. I certainly will.

Mr. Jennissen: Getting back to trucking and free trade for just a moment, because the minister seemed to be saying a day or two ago that NAFTA free trade was universally popular or more or less universally popular, it does not appear to be always that popular with the trucking industry. I have one of their news briefs, if I could just read that for a moment.

CTA says: No NAFTA in trucking. In a written submission to the NAFTA land and transportation plenary, the CTA raised two key points regarding the Canadian trucking industry's role in NAFTA. The essence of the submission is in the following section. In terms of the transportation component of NAFTA, quite frankly, we are of the view that the agreement does not exist, at least in a practical sense. The United States-Mexico border remains closed basically stifling progress towards a truly continental marketplace and retarding progress on harmonized standards. Indeed, as it relates to cross-border trucking between Canada and the United States, one might argue that NAFTA has been counterproductive. The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service and the United States Customs Service, USCS, have enacted or proposed numerous restrictive measures aimed principally at the southern border which could have serious negative implications for the free flow of goods across the border. Section 110 of the illegal immigration act and the USCS proposed rule marking on freight diversion at the border are examples. Even on issues where agreement on harmonized standards has been reached, for example, Canada and United States medical standards, former adoption of the standards has not been implemented.

I wonder if the minister could comment on this point which seems to run contrary to his earlier assertions.

* (1600)

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, there is one thing one learns about one's colleagues in the United States. They may talk about free trade, but they are a nation that loves to put up a lot of impediments to free trade. One of the reasons why, in fact, members on this side of the House were so strong supporters of free trade agreements, and certainly taking the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement extending to NAFTA to gain partners, is because it tied the Americans into a system and a process that would see barriers come down. When members opposite opposed those trade agreements, they were saying to us we should not even get our foot in the door. We should just live with trade barriers.

As a country that lives off of trade where we only have 30 million people here and we need to sell our goods and services to earn our living, and are very good at it, very good at it if given the chance, that position I just still cannot understand why one would be not wanting to be part of trade agreements that are giving us a foot in the door. It is not to say that it is easy, but it is a strong foot in the door with tools we did not have before to bring down barriers.

Mr. Chair, one of the things that I very strongly believe in and tend to advocate while I am in this office is for the harmonization of our standards and processes across North America. There is no doubt in my mind that in the future the ability to be able to move our goods and products across North America in a harmonized system is key to our growth and our prosperity, and as a province that exports so many products, these types of artificial barriers formed by different systems, structures and processes do nothing to facilitate the efficient movement of product.

Last night I had the honour of being a guest at the Jalisco Manitoba dinner. At my particular table were a number of officials from the Mexican Embassy in Ottawa as well as representatives of the government of Jalisco. We talked about these barriers, and we both recognized that the United States, which, by the way, is not a country with a single structure that puts forward opinions, it is a country of diverse organizations, diverse interests, many different lobbies and lobby groups, as I have come to learn over the last dozen years, and there are many different interests in the United States.

There are forces in the United States that would love to put up a lot of barriers to Canadian transportation companies, trucks, railroads, Mexican trucking and railroad firms, to keep them out so that American goods or Canadian goods or Mexican goods only run on American trucks. They would love to use a variety of barriers, regulatory barriers, to be able to give themselves an advantage over Canadians, and, I would argue, Mexican companies, who can be competitive with them.

That is not what free trade is about. That does not mean to say that when you agree to free trade that everybody is going to embrace it wholly. There are many forces in the United States that do not embrace it. So it is incumbent upon us to continue to work diligently at moving towards breaking down those barriers to give access to our industry, who we believe can be very competitive.

Our colleagues from Jalisco in Mexico feel their sense was very much the same thing. One of the benefits of NAFTA and one of the feelings we saw last night as both of us being neighbours to this great economic powerhouse in the centre of North America is that there are alliances there that we can be working together to continue to put pressure on American regulators and the American government to be able to recognize the importance of harmonization of our systems to ensure safe, efficient flow of goods throughout North America as a key component to a free trade zone, which we have in North America.

Is it going to happen overnight? Not at all. Will there be opponents to developing that in the United States? Absolutely. But those opponents to harmonization in the United States are the same people who would want to ensure that we as Canadians can never get our foot in the door in the American market to sell our goods. Do they have to be taken on? You bet they do, and we will continue to do it.

We are a small player, but I think we want to be a vocal player in this debate and continue to move forward because, if we have learned anything out of the experience of the last decade, it is whenever we are given a level playing field in terms of regulation, Manitobans and Canadians can be highly competitive, whether it be in manufacturing, food processing, agriculture, and certainly transportation. That is what I think we have to continue to work towards.

You know, I just say this to the member very sincerely. If we look at what has happened in Europe, if we look at what has happened as the artificial barriers of those boundaries have come down, as the European Community has grown and become more integrated in the lives of Europeans–and I know the member has experienced growing up in Holland. I do not know at what age he came to Canada, but I know he has referenced returning on many occasions to visit family. Europe is a very prosperous place. It has some very real problems in terms of subsidization that it has to come to grips with and a lot of inefficiencies in its economy, but it has seen real benefits from the free flow of goods across what used to be national boundaries in the days before the European Community. It has been able to see greater efficiencies in its economy and consequently more wealth by bringing those barriers down, by harmonizing its regulatory regimes so that goods and people with them can move freely across European borders. It has benefited from that kind of free movement of goods just as we expect all North Americans will benefit from the same free flow of goods.

Free flow of goods does not mean you can move the goods across the border with minimal interference or lack of tariffs. It also means you have to be able to move it on a physical means of transportation. We view that as a very integral part of the economic development of the continent, of which we are very much a part. So yes, there will be battles to fight, yes, we have to continue fighting them, yes, we have to continue moving towards the goal, because I ultimately believe much of our prosperity in future years will depend upon it.

Mr. Jennissen: One of the issues that has always been the issue is truck safety both for the people driving the trucks themselves and also for other motorists on the road. If I am correct, I believe, since the late '50s, truck size has increased, at least the weight has increased by, I believe, about threefold, perhaps even more. I am not up on that statistic, but I do know the sizes and the weights have increased. A lot of larger trucks are on the road. They seem to move a lot faster, of course. Perhaps the roads are better than they were 40 years ago as well. However, there are accidents. I know there were in Ontario some grievous accidents in which wheels came off trucks and in fact killed several people. Ontario, I believe, imposes fines of up to $50,000 in those kinds of accidents.

Now as far as I am aware, and this information comes from CBC radio, not that I am questioning it, but according to this statement from, I believe it is, Vera-Lynn Kubinec or Diana Swain, one of the two, that Manitoba has had 12 wheel-off accidents in the past one and half years. Should we be concerned?

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I would say to the member he should never rely on the CBC as a totally accurate source of information. That would be my advice to him. There have not been 12 accidents; there have been 12 incidents where wheels have come off, and none of them have resulted in accidents to our knowledge. Each one of those incidents is reported and investigated and what we learn from it we try to work into our system.

One of the things that has also advanced is the requirements for inspection of vehicles over the last number of years to ensure their safety. As well, we work very closely with the Manitoba Trucking Association as they train their drivers, and the amount of training that goes into the trucking industry today is really phenomenal. I think gone are the days where just someone is hired off the street with the right classification and thrown in a truck. Trucking companies have a great deal of investment in their operation. They do not put very expensive pieces of equipment in the hands of drivers who do not know what they are doing, so they are investing a great deal of time and effort and training in making people aware of what to watch for, doing inspections because there is very little to be had in the cost of properly maintaining a truck and training an operator. It far outweighs the cost of damaged goods, bad reputation, et cetera, in a highly competitive industry.

So 12 particular incidents is not unusually high, and none of them resulted in an accident. I suspect some of the training that has gone into it prevented accidents in fact. I imagine one would hope we would never have those incidents. Things like that do happen but we are continuing to be vigilant about it. What I would not want to see happen is what has happened in other jurisdictions that one or two highly publicized incidents result in a whole furore of activity by regulators and that does not necessarily reduce the incidents. It just makes it look like government is doing something about it.

* (1610)

We saw that happen in some other jurisdictions and what has happened, of course, is it has made it difficult. An overreaction to the problem may have made it more difficult to harmonize regulatory regimes in a rational way, in a meaningful way, because people tend to throw in regulations to suit the calls of the media whether they actually have an effect or not, and in many cases do not really have an effect. Other jurisdictions do not want to adopt that in their structures because they are not necessarily useful regulatory additions, and they make it hard to develop the harmonization we need. Ultimately having a harmonized not only set of rules, good rules that work, and a regulatory inspection or regime that is also harmonized means that the trucking industry knows what to meet from coast to coast–hopefully, some day across North America–and is subject to regular inspection wherever they may be riding that validates them in other parts of the system, so that we are accommodating the movements of the industry rather than accommodating our geographic inspection schemes. Also, having ultimately an information system built right across the continent where that information goes into it, and you are able to identify the culprits, those who are not living up to the regulation, and get those trucks off the roads. So again another reason to be diligently working towards harmonizing our regulatory regimes and processes.

Mr. Jennissen: The minister made a very good point at the beginning of his opening statement when he said the word that should have been used by Vera-Lynn Kubinec was 12 wheel-off incidents, not accidents, but the transcript I have says "accidents." It could in fact be a typing error. I am sure we did not have 12 accidents.

An Honourable Member: A normal CBC error.

Mr. Jennissen: A normal CBC error, the minister says. However, there was one truck wheel-off accident at or near Lynn Lake, and I think the department investigated that. The reason I am somewhat interested in that is because I had reports about a series of violations there for quite a while, and I do not know if it was just one person's perception or whether there was more to it than that, but certainly the accident did happen. I wonder if we could get a little update on why it happened. Has that been remedied? It was Mulder Brothers trucking, I believe.

Mr. Praznik: In the interests of accurate conveyance of information, if the member would allow us to have Mr. Hosang who is responsible for that area provide the report on this particular accident and then I can deal with the policy issues.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Please proceed.

Mr. John Hosang (Assistant Deputy Minister, Engineering and Technical Services Division, Highways and Transportation): The incident involved Park Transport [phonetic], if you recall. That was the name of the firm. Yes, our department did investigate it, and we conducted what is a normal wheel-off investigation. The investigation has been completed, and the facts, as we were best able to determine them, were that the vehicle which was on a private road at the time, not on a provincial road, did hit a soft spot in the shoulder, went into the ditch and, in doing so, came in contact with a large boulder. In fact, that incident knocked the front axle off the truck. The pictures that you saw and that were reported to us that initiated the investigation were taken by an ex-employee of the firm when the truck had been pulled out of the ditch. The investigation has been completed, and there is no evidence that it was a wheel off per se. We believe, and the balance of evidence goes too, its being that he hit the ditch, and that caused the accident and the loss of the axle.

There are a number of issues that came to our attention during the investigation that we are continuing to follow up and they will be following the normal process of our facility audit. We have not finished that yet.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): I apologize to the honourable member. I have been calling you the member for The Pas. I am just reminded it was Flin Flon.

Mr. Jennissen: That is all right. My constituency has expanded.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): And you will be The Pas.

Mr. Jennissen: Mr. Chair, not a problem. The former employee has made other allegations, though, as well, one of them being that I believe the same company, one of their trucks was involved with a Gardewine truck, an accident, and alleges numerous other accidents, basically alleging that it is lack of maintenance. Is there more to this?

Mr. Praznik: Yes, Mr. Chair, I appreciate very much the question from the member for Flin Flon. My staff advise me that, in the kind of work that we do in preparing that report, we do work with the Department of Justice as to whether or not there has been a violation of a particular statute or regulation and whether charges should be laid. That is still under review with the Department of Justice. I am sure the member would appreciate that it is most difficult for my staff or myself to be answering his questions as frankly as I would like to for fear of, in any way, jeopardizing the result of that particular process. That is not to say that charges are likely to be laid or not likely to be laid, but that is the difficulty of getting into the details of that kind of discussion.

Mr. Jennissen: I understand that. That is perfectly fine. Switching somewhat, I remember the deputy minister a year or several years ago giving a very good argument, I believe, for the impetus for longer hours for drivers of large trucks, although personally I have some real hesitation with this. I do not know which direction that was going. I think the argument the deputy minister made at the time that there were different rhythms or cycles with some people, and some people could, in fact, drive trucks quite safely for a number of hours. I do not know what the outcome of that was or where we are at in this province or this country, but some people are concerned, though, that the hours that truck drivers can legally drive may, in fact, be too long. I would like a comment from either the minister or the deputy minister on that.

Mr. Praznik: This is one of these issues of part of harmonization of at least within standards in Canada. We are having discussions with our counterparts across the country. Quite frankly. there is a range and different ways of viewing this, and we have not yet reached a resolution. I think from my perspective as minister that there are two critical parts to this. One is having numbers that are safe for the motoring public that take into account risk factors and averages, et cetera, that are safe; and, secondly, that they in fact be harmonized across the country, that we all agree to accept those numbers. What is important is you do not want a truck driver who is driving from Winnipeg to Toronto or to Montreal or from Regina to Toronto passing through a number of jurisdictions and being governed by a different set of rules in each jurisdiction. It becomes a nightmare to enforce because they may be driving so many hours in Manitoba, so many in Ontario. What rules apply? So we are trying to meet both those criteria, harmonization and a safe number, and we have yet concluded those discussions.

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, because I do realize that in other transportation areas, such as drivers of trains, pilots and airplanes and so on, there are limits of hours of being behind the wheel, so to speak, or the joystick, and hours of rest that are necessary and so on. I believe, if I recall correctly, we were talking about truckers driving 13 hours, which seemed to me an awfully long time. I am basing that on my own experience. Of course, I am not a very young person anymore. When I drive north, it is seven, eight hours. Actually, when I drive legally, it should be eight hours, but sometimes I make it a little sooner. And I am extremely tired. I would find it difficult to believe that people can drive for these long stretches of time and maybe technically within the law, but that it would be safe. We are talking larger trucks, heavier trucks, denser traffic. True, the roads are better than they were 40 years ago, and perhaps the same guidelines should not apply. Perhaps there is a great variation from person to person. I know there are people who can be quite alert for 15, 20 hours; others cannot. I am just wondering if that is also part of that examining part is being done.

Mr. Praznik: One of the important parts about setting regulation when we do these things is that we are setting, we should remember, not the norm, but the maximum. That is always something we should take into account, that we are setting maximums over which you cannot exceed. So what is critical is you figure out what the reasonable range is and what the maximum is. That is what would appear in that kind of regulation. Currently, I believe we were talking about, or have in place, a range that is 15 hours of service on duty, of which 13 can be behind the wheel. So the current rate in Manitoba is that an operator in a 24-hour period can be on duty for no more than 15 and, of that 15, can be behind the wheel for no more than 13. That includes some downtime, inspecting trucks and other things.

Again, it is the balance. Is that the norm for most operators? Probably not. But it is viewed as the maximum range in which an operator can operate safely. Again, when you are setting maximums, you have to say what can you expect. It is hard to set a norm and a maximum, and there are always going to be circumstances when you are on a long route. If you are going to be in a circumstance where you will be using the maximum, to be prepared appropriately with rest time before, et cetera, so that is part of the process that is now in place and forms a great part of the discussion. I am trying to harmonize that nationally.

* (1620)

Mr. Jennissen: In that 15 hours on duty, 13 hours behind the wheel, is there some other stipulation in the sense that there must be a break somewhere in there? I am not suggesting that it would have to be every three or four hours, but that it should not be 13 hours and then you take a two-hour break.

Mr. Praznik: The difficulty with sort of stipulating in that, I guess the break is as often as your bladder will allow you to sit. In all of these things, the ability for a driver to take a break is dependent upon places to take it. The trouble with crafting of regulation is that, if you say that with every three hours or two hours there has to be a break, you might be on that stretch of road going north where there just is not a place to take a break. How do we enforce it? Does the guy stop the truck and sit for 15 minutes; then carry on, and does not stop because he is half an hour from the next coffee shop, rest stop, et cetera?

Obviously it is in the interests of the trucking industry and truck drivers to ensure that they are taking some reasonable breaks. They obviously have issues of using washrooms, of freshening up, taking nourishment during this period to be able to continue to operate the vehicle. So one would always expect that common sense is certainly going to apply in this within those maximums. To date, I do not think we have had that I am aware of many complaints coming from drivers or others that there are unfair expectations as to breaks and stops within that maximum that is now set.

Mr. Jennissen: I was not trying to suggest that it was a serious issue. I was just wondering about the driver that would choose to drive at, say, eight hours at a stretch, then take a short break and so on which might not be as safe as it ought to be.

Some other questions I would have are, I believe, I am not really up on the issue, but I will ask the minister. Drivers for those large trucking companies, or owners of those large trucks, are required to keep logbooks. Is that not correct? There is legislation before the House, and I am not sure of the protocol whether the minister can even discuss it while it is in the making, so to speak, that co-drivers also have logbooks. I do not know much about the issue, about logbooks and what is entered in a logbook. Are rest breaks in there as well? Perhaps he could talk about the co-drivers using logbooks. Thanks.

Mr. Praznik: First of all, I did not mean to imply in any way that the member was saying this was a serious issue with the rest break. The only reason I flagged the complaints is simply that in doing regulation, if we find an area where we are getting a continual amount of complaints, or if he is getting as a member, then it is worthy of saying: hey, common sense is not applying here, we have a problem and how are we going to deal with it? To date that is not the kind of response we had and that is the only reason I raised it, just to put in context that if we are not getting complaints, probably in practice, it is not something we should be particularly concerned about as long as we have set the maximums.

I am going to ask, with the member's indulgence, my staff to explain the rules around the logbook issues, because they are much more familiar with the detail than I am. I know the member would want to have it accurate, but these are very important issues and questions and understanding them. I think if the committee will indulge us, Mr. Hosang will give us the overview of that issue.

Mr. Hosang: With respect to co-drivers, yes, they have to carry logbooks with them and document the time that they are on and off duty. So if there are two drivers in the vehicle and it is stopped, they both have the same requirement to produce a logbook whether one is sleeping in the berth or not.

Mr. Jennissen: Roads cost a lot of money. We have been discussing this now for a few days, and obviously overweight loads and weight restrictions in the spring are important factors in making sure that our roads are not abused unnecessarily. I presume that weigh scales are an important factor here in limiting any kind of abuse. I do find it interesting though when I drive north from Winnipeg to Cranberry Portage, up Highway No. 6 and across the Easterville road and then back up Highway No. 10, the only weigh scale I run into is near The Pas. I believe there are only 10 in the province anyway, but compare that to Europe again where there are weigh scales everywhere. It just seems to me you could do an awful lot of driving without ever being checked at a weigh scale.

Now, I know there are roaming inspectors as well, but I am just wondering if the system is open to abuse. I do know in the past, just as an aside, that truckers hauling logs from the North to the mill at The Pas would have what they call a cheater's scale. They would have these overloaded trucks, they would pull off and dump a bunch of logs off and then continue to the regular scales. This practice went on for a fair while. I do not know how systemic the abuse is, or if there even is any, but I have heard stories. I am just wondering if I could have an update on the perception of the people that would know more about it than I would.

Mr. Praznik: First of all, the comment about Europe is a very interesting one because, again, it is the ability to do a lot more because you have so much more traffic, so many more taxpayers to support that kind of system. In a sparsely populated jurisdiction like Manitoba, relative to Europe, my staff advised me that the use of the mobile scales on a spot-check basis is probably far more effective than a network with that happening. I am going to ask Mr. Hosang to add to my answer, given some statistics, or at least to ask the member if there are some specific statistics or situations he is liking, which we can provide him with that information. Mr. Hosang may have some other comments to add.

Mr. Hosang: In addition to our 10 permanent weigh stations which the member has mentioned, we have the mobile teams that are very effective in catching offenders. They will be wherever they think the overloads are being carried out at the time. Truckers could avoid the weigh scales and do if they are carrying overloads. Because it is a highly sort of mobile force, the number of teams, I do not have that information right here at the time if there is a specific activity that you would want. We do keep statistics more on the number of violations that we log, and we are prepared to table that kind of information if you want on a comparative year-to-year basis.

Mr. Jennissen: I would be very interested to have that statistic actually. That would be very useful. One other question I have is, I was under the impression that there was another weigh scale to be built on the junction of Highway 60 and No. 10. Is that not a reality? Was that not in the planning a number of years ago?

Mr. Hosang: We have no firm plans at the moment to build a permanent weigh station there, no. We have considered at times providing a wider shoulder in certain locations to allow our mobile crews to go in there from time to time. The member may have heard of that being considered.

Mr. Jennissen: Now, if there is a weight restriction on a road, let us say 391, let us argue from Leaf Rapids to Lynn Lake, and there is a roaming inspector and he uses portable scales and the load is overweight, is there a system like one in which a fine is levied right away and the fine is based on the overweight, or is there a series of warnings first and that kind of protocol?

* (1630)

Mr. Hosang: We have a schedule. Yes, the fine is dependent on the actual overweight, depending on the circumstance, if our compliance officer were to determine that it is a brand-new driver or a new firm and there is reason to suspect they might not be aware of the overweight. But that is a pretty fundamental rule to follow. So we do show understanding whenever we pull a truck over. Something like an overweight is pretty fundamental, so there would have to be pretty extenuating circumstances not to levy the fine.

Mr. Jennissen: I have one final question on this issue, and it is strictly a subjective one in many ways. I did talk with a person who was involved as a weight inspector and probably still is, and he showed some frustration when I talked with him. It was somewhat ironic. It was about one particular person, one farmer and trucks that that particular person used being overweight and being penalized or attempting to penalize him. He would take this situation to court, and he seemed to beat the system via the courts quite often. There seemed to be a great degree of frustration.

Is this a common occurrence where someone says, look, I will fight it in the courts, and then you could win it on some technicality perhaps even? Is it common, or is this just an isolated incident?

Mr. Praznik: Here the member raises a matter that I think, as rural MLAs, particularly in areas where you have had a log haul in the winter, as I do in my constituency, has been somewhat frustrating for many of our operators. Of course, when a person is charged with being overweight, having an overweight truck, it is an offence and they have a right to be tried. They have a right to plead not guilty. They have a right also to plead guilty before a magistrate, with an explanation, and their sentence to be set by the hearing officer, who is dealing with the matter, whether it be a provincial court judge or a magistrate depending on the process. We do not control, nor should we, in a proper justice and democratic system, those kinds of decisions.

What my experience has been is that sometimes our enforcement officers are not using common sense necessarily in their enforcement, and sometimes there are circumstances where people are overweight on the roads. Particularly in the winter, they have accumulated ice, et cetera, that have added to their weights. I know in one particular instance last year in my area, we had people who were operating in the bush, weight restrictions went on, and the operator was coming out of the bush with a piece of equipment that was overweight. Well, you know, he had never had an opportunity to be informed that the weight restrictions had gone on. Discretion is important in enforcing the law as well, as I am sure the member would agree. Notice was provided, et cetera, and the individual in question in my area went before a magistrate, pled guilty, but said here is why: I was in the bush for three days, weight restrictions went on, I did not know about it. I was hauling my equipment home. It was unusually warm this time of the year. I did know what had happened. I had no way of knowing because I was even out of cell phone range to call home.

I think the penalty was reduced to zero by the magistrate. So that kind of discretion should always be part of implementing our laws. Does that not lead to some frustration by enforcement officers? Absolutely. But I tell you, as minister, I always think that the operation of regulations and of laws has to always be tempered somewhat by common sense in the laying of charges. I would hope that our enforcement people do use common sense.

If, of course, you have somebody who is always claiming load after load is overweight, well, it is just ice. Well, come on, you have not learned anything. You should be hit with the penalty and pay the full cost of it. I remember as well, before I was the Minister of Highways, one of my constituents coming in to see me with an interesting story, got hit with an overweight case on a circumstance that, I cannot remember the exact detail, but it kind of suggested to me maybe discretion was not applied by the enforcement officer. That individual went to court, went before a judge, and the judge reduced the fine considerably and said: you go back to your politicians and tell them that their fine system is archaic compared to the nature of the crime.

He came to tell me and deliver that message to take to the Minister of Highways. Obviously some discretion is important. There is a fine line between discretion and not doing your job, and the safety valve on the system, in my mind, because we should not just rely on the proper use of discretion by enforcement officers because obviously that is a subjective matter and open to criticism on another count, but the safety valve for everyone is the fact that these penalties and these charges, in essence, have to be and can be, if desired by the accused, tested before a magistrate or by a judge in a court of law.

Ultimately that is a good thing to have in our system. Although you may find some enforcement people who are frustrated by that process, I cannot think of a better way to do it, quite frankly.

Mr. Jennissen: I thank the minister for that answer. Talking about the costs of roads and how expensive they are and the difficulty we are having getting the feds to put in some money, I have often wondered–and again I am off on a little bit of a philosophical bent here–why we do not have partnerships with larger businesses or huge companies that do pound our roads to pieces.

Let us take Tolko, for example, Repap, or Louisiana-Pacific. I do not want to single them out, but as an example, they do beat the road to pieces. Now, it is true they pay fuel tax, they pay licences and insurances and so on. We might argue we do not want to put any barriers in the way to economic development, but I know there are jurisdictions in other parts of the world where there are partnerships for those companies who would be required to also put in some money to keep that road system going.

I was somewhat surprised that prior to the '95 election we talked about putting $90 million into northern roads, contingent on Repap expansion, and that we, the province, were going to carry that entire burden. The argument could be made that at least some of that burden should be borne by big business if they can afford it. We do not want to put unnecessary barriers in their way. [interjection] That is a possibility. I mean, just raising it as another direction we can go.

The other thing could be perhaps a more negative one. If railroads pull out, and CN and CP have big bucks, seem to have big bucks at least at the moment, I know they also lost big bucks, maybe there should be a negative aspect of this, too, because that puts more stress on our road system, so pulling out and abandoning rail lines, maybe there should be a penalty attached to that. That penalty should be money accrued to us in order to fix the road system, the rural system, which is taking extra stress due to their rail line abandonment, suggesting some possibly different options that I know were not on the books immediately, but maybe something we should at least look at.

Mr. Praznik: First of all, one of the arguments I have always been hit with by big users of the road is they say, hey, wait a minute, we are already paying 10 cents a litre federal fuel tax and nothing is coming back and now you want more out of us? That is a very valid reason and that is why I believe the concept of dedicated fuel taxes, the road system being paid for by road users in the collective sense, is probably the way to go because it would allow us to say, look, if you are going to be travelling on roadways with vehicles of very excessive weights that do the most damage, perhaps you will require a permit to do that for which we can charge X number of dollars. And again, those who are using and wearing the road, that becomes part of the cost that they have to bear for moving freight at that kind of cost. We would have more vehicles by which to get the cost borne by the parties using the system and obviously those who use those goods, it gets reflected in their costs.

One difficulty I have with the member is he says we should just go after big companies. Well, the answer then is simply just contract all your work to single-owner drivers, right, because they are small. No, ultimately, if you are building your highway system on a usage system, and I am not advocating toll roads, I am saying I believe the way to do it is fuel tax or permit use for very large vehicles that do a great deal of damage, that you get some of the costs of that back, you will have more vehicles with which to ensure that those kinds of costs are now being collected in fees, et cetera, that come back into the system. Ultimately if one were to do that and look at fuel consumption and look at the very heavy weights that do the most damage, paying some sort of permit fee, you now have the ability to say whether you are a Repap or single user, you are the one doing the damage, you pay your share of it. So I appreciate what the member said.

* (1640)

Mr. Chairperson: 15.2. Highways and Transportation Programs (d) Transportation Safety and Regulatory Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,753,900–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $666,800–pass.

15.2.(e) Regional Offices (1) Eastern Region Office (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,348,100–pass; (b) Other Expenditures $532,000–pass.

15.2.(e)(2) South Central Region Office (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,307,000–pass; (b) Other Expenditures $612,400–pass.

15.2.(e)(3) South Western Region Office (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,149,400–pass; (b) Other Expenditures $542,400–pass.

15.2.(e)(4) West Central Region Office (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,722,300–pass; (b) Other Expenditures, $458,400–pass.

15.2.(e)(5) Northern Region Office (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,407,700–pass; (b) Other Expenditures $450,300–pass.

15.2.(f) Winter Roads $2,175,000.

Mr. Jennissen: I have a number of questions on winter roads, Mr. Chair. One of them is a general and generic question I am sure the minister's staff have heard me raise before, and that is that the northwestern region of the province still relies on winter toll roads which add an enormous burden to the cost of living of people in Tadoule Lake, Lac Brochet and so on and some of those other communities. I can understand and I support why the province is involved with winter roads elsewhere or in conjunction with the federal government on a 50-50 basis with winter roads to some other small remote communities or reserves. I do not understand why that particular section has been almost exempted. Maybe it is an historical accident, but I point out the fact that it does increase the basic costs of foodstuffs and gasoline enormously when you place a toll on the road. That toll is needed, I guess, to pay for constructing that winter road. I do know in the case of Lac Brochet, because I have talked with storekeepers that had a load of goodies coming through, a load of whatever it is, is $6,000 or $7,000. At least it used to be. I have seen bills of over $100,000 from some stores directly related to tolls.

Now, that money has to be recouped somehow, and it is recouped via selling the material in the store. Therefore, the poorest of the poor people in northern Manitoba pay much more than elsewhere. I think it is artificially high because that toll is there. Now, I know the toll road and the making of a winter toll road also creates jobs, and that is the other side that is very positive, but I am still not clear why we cannot have just one uniform policy all across this province.

Mr. Praznik: Well, Mr. Chair, the member is right. It is a historic anomaly and it is one that, quite frankly, we would have to find the dollars to address. That has not been done to date and, quite frankly, should be looked at.

I must admit it is the first I have been made aware of it, as the new minister coming in. It is the old issue that the Department of Highways took over the old, certain portions of the winter road system years ago that was developed I guess in the '60s and '70s. It came into the Department of Highways. That was not part of it.

It is a private winter road. The tolls are collected by the person who operates it and who builds it and maintains it. They do not receive a public subsidy. That is the explanation, as the member knows. I guess it is one of the issues that the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman) and I should be looking at addressing with our federal counterparts and see if it can be included in a 50-50 road program with the feds, but it is one of those historical unfairnesses that needs to be addressed.

Mr. Jennissen: I also have a letter from the minister, February 25, 1999, asking for my assistance on the winter road we supply communities with in my constituency, because sometimes, you know, those roads do not materialize because of the weather conditions. I do appreciate the minister asking for input, because it is a great concern. Sometimes they do not get those roads pushed through. That is a risk that those people who put those toll roads up take because, if you do not get the road through, you may have spent a lot of money and there is nothing coming back for you. So that makes it even more imperative the next year to charge higher tolls, I guess.

I am not knocking the job creation or the entrepreneurship of the people building those roads. I very much support that. If we do get involved, I hope we use those same people to continue building those winter roads, but it is a question of fairness, like the minister says.

What worries me more than anything else though, I think, is when I see people in Tadoule Lake, as one example, or Lac, who are living in a region of great unemployment, living on social assistance not because they are liking it, but because there do not appear to be opportunities for advancement, for jobs, for entrepreneurship, whatever. You walk into the store, and you need to buy something, whatever it might be. I remember in one case it was four shrunken apples. They were $4. Or a litre jug of milk that anywhere else you pay maybe a dollar and a half for or whatever and over there it might be $6. Sometimes the prices are just astronomical. Someone on social assistance, and I see a lot of young women with babies, I do not see how you can feed those children properly.

I know that if the toll portion could be removed off those goods that would be a significant portion and would make it a lot easier for those people. So for me it is also a social justice issue. It is a sore point with me because on the one hand, I want equality, but on the other hand, I do not want to be accused, not for narrow, partisan reasons, of preventing people of making a livelihood creating winter roads. There has to be a win-win situation there somewhere. I am basically just venting somewhat. I would like the minister's opinion on whether that makes sense.

Mr. Praznik: No, I agree wholeheartedly with him, it is a fairness issue. It is the first time I have been apprised of it that I remember or recall. It is a fairness issue. Why does the federal and provincial government subsidize winter roads in other parts of the province and not there? It is a fairness issue. Ultimately, at the end of the day, you know, you should be treating people in like circumstances and like ways. So it is something I am certainly going to have to look at with my staff as we prepare for next year's season.

Mr. Jennissen: Just for clarification sake, I would also like to know which roads actually are toll roads. Is, for example, the one stretch from Lynn Lake or Co-op Point, whatever that is, to Brochet a toll road? I think it is, but just to confirm that.

Mr. Praznik: I am advised that is the case. I will ask my department to provide by way of a letter to the member, or a note to the member, which I will forward what sections are exactly toll or which are not. We will get that in writing for him.

Mr. Jennissen: I am sorry, and the South Indian Lake portion would also be a toll road then, would it? From Leaf Rapids to South Indian Lake, is that toll?

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I am advised it is not. I will have my staff actually prepare that list. Even if we are out of Estimates, we will provide it to the member.

Mr. Chairperson: I would have to ask the honourable members to slow it down just a little bit for Hansard, okay? When I have two mikes going off and on, it makes it a little difficult.

* (1650)

Mr. Jennissen: So I will not then ask for specific costs for various winter roads. I was going to ask for the cost of the winter road to Pukatawagan and so on. Perhaps the minister's staff could supply me that information as well.

I would like to raise, however, one winter road that ought to be but does not exist as far as I know, although Hydro did push a winter road through I think for a few years, and that is the one to Granville Lake. It is a very small community and it needs a lot of help. If a winter road is not possible, the community has asked on numerous occasions, would they at least be able to get a small grant. They would be willing to cut or pioneer a better snowmobile trail to Leaf Rapids, because apparently the one that they tend to use is dangerous because there are stretches–not because there is open water but because there are some currents under the ice and so on. There are some dangerous stretches. They have a better suggestion or a better route suggested, but that would take some money, and I am wondering if the minister's staff could look at it. We are not talking enormous costs here. I think the total cost was I believe $40,000 or something.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I have just asked my staff. We will have a look at that option. I will ask them also to get some more information from the member for Flin Flon, because that sounds like a fairly reasonable solution. Somewhere near a hundred thousand dollar winter road could be a lot cheaper if the community built a properly signed and looked after snowmobile route. Quite frankly that might be a very economical way to improve access, much better than a winter road perhaps, and I will have my staff speak to the member. I am giving that instruction now and to get some more information. Maybe that is something we can look at as an option for next year.

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, and in the matter of clarification, I just want to point out that Granville Lake is one of those very few communities where there is no road access. There is no gravel airstrip either so you come in by pontoon plane in the summer and by ski plane in the winter, if you are lucky. It is a very isolated place, and I think it needs a little more attention from the province. I am sure of that.

In fact, on the positive side, some water and sewage issues are being addressed in that community. I am very happy to see that.

Mr. Praznik: Just one clarification though. I would like to say that this is one of the difficulties in expectation levels. My deputy has reminded me that Granville Lake is a community that broke off from an existing First Nation and sort of moved to the point and set up. I just want to make the point that when these kind of things happen there should not be an expectation without prior agreement that services will be provided.

I know there are a number of other places in my days as Northern Affairs where we had breakaways from First Nations. Groups of people could not get along and the split-away groups, often the minority, went to another piece of often Crown land, set up a bit of a settlement and then with no economic options there, no job opportunities, and then turned around to the Department of Northern Affairs and said we want to be a Northern Affairs community. We want funding for this; we want funding for that. We want these kind of resources and the same level of services as other communities.

Part of being a breakaway community, when you leave a community, is you cannot expect the taxpayers of Canada or Manitoba to rush in to provide for a whole host of services without people agreeing to do that in advance. If a community wants to set up, raise its own dollars and build, I am not going to stop them, but that is one of the problems. I have seen it happen before, so I am just putting that caveat on my comments. We will certainly look at the snowmobile route issue. I think that might be a solution but part of good planning in most areas governed by municipalities. We have a planning act that allows some municipal authority to make decisions whether or not subdivisions will be approved, whether or not areas will be residential, because we know that that results in streets and school requirements and a host of infrastructure.

Many times municipalities turn down residential development, because they look at the cost of bringing the services to that area far away, you know, the benefits of that area being developed, or there are other reasons why that area should not be developed. So every day in the course of most municipal jurisdictions throughout this province, throughout this country, there are subdivisions and residential developments that are turned down. Just because this is in the North and on Crown land or Northern Affairs land that one can expect because you sort of set up a settlement there, all of a sudden everyone is going to move in with the services. So I just want to put that on as a caveat.

We will look at the snowmobile issue, but I think it is important to recognize too that if a group of people–it is the same story, I guess, if you had a major mineral find in an area and a company wanted to set up a town to support their workers, it would not require the approval of a province. It would require agreement on infrastructure. That is why we even created the special revenue school districts. The last remaining three are in my constituency: Pinawa, the Whiteshell School District in Pinawa; Pointe du Bois which is Winnipeg Hydro; and, Pine Falls which is the paper company. Again, that kind of development does not necessitate that the taxpayers have to provide all those services in those particular areas, and those coming in have to accept some responsibility to build that infrastructure, so the same applies here.

I just wanted to put that on the record, because I would not want in the future someone to say: well, because we have a group who broke away from their community where infrastructure was provided for whatever reason and set up a new town, there is an automatic right and expectation that the rest of society should have to pay to bring in those services. If they agree in advance is why we have planning acts. We have those kind of things so we know what we are getting into when we agree at the beginning. That is not the case here, but having said that, we will still endeavour to look at the snowmobile trail issue.

Mr. Jennissen: The minister mentions break-away communities and I get the impression he thinks this happened yesterday. Just in the light of fact, I was travelling to Sherridon the other day with a Mr. Celestine Sayies who happened to be 67 years of age. He mentioned the fact he was born in the community of Granville Lake. I just want to put that on the record. So 67 years ago Granville Lake existed. I admit it is a breakaway in the sense of at one time being part of Mathias Colomb, but so is Black Sturgeon which is now recognized as I think the latest First Nation in our country. So, yes, it does happen but sometimes those are natural outgrowths. These are larger communities, and they hive off. They break. Granville Lake has been there for a long, long time.

Mr. Praznik: Yes, if I may, that is why I am certainly prepared to look at this snowmobile option. The only reason I want to put that on the record is there are communities that have in more recent times broken away. I have had other communities. Just for example, I cannot remember, was that Ebb and Flow or one of the First Nations where there was a brutal standoff? RCMP were involved and there was a group of people who left that community and then said to government: we want to set up a community somewhere else and everybody should then provide us infrastructure.

Well, I really want to discourage that from happening without agreement in advance. There may be many times when a First Nation grows to a particular size and wants to set up another settlement somewhere. That is fine. I do not oppose that as long as people know in advance what it is, what can be provided, what are the economics around it, et cetera. I put that in not so much with respect to the long history of Granville Lake, but just the general policy issue of communities that split and making sure we assess their infrastructure needs in advance as opposed to after the fact.

Mr. Chairperson: 15.2.(f) Winter Roads $2,175,000–pass.

15.2.(g) Other Jurisdictions (1) Gross Expenditures $2,500,000.

Mr. Jennissen: Basically one question, we have dealt with it before and that is Other Jurisdictions. I think this is the place to be asking it. There are a number of places in northern Manitoba where there are cottages around lakes. In the past, the Highways department used to plow out those roads. I do not know whichever mechanism they worked out, it seemed to work. That has changed lately because I think the department is asking private people owning snowplows to do that. It has worked to some degree, but there is still some resentment in some quarters. I think it boils down to the fact that what was happening was that if a department snowplow came through and cleared the road and the cottagers paid for it, that money did not go back into the regional coffers but rather went, I believe it was, to the Minister of Finance, or perhaps even to the department coffers. So naturally the regional people were not too keen on doing this because it was losing money for them. I do not know if that has been really resolved or not, but it was a contentious issue last year and the year before. I am wondering if we could have just a very brief update on that.

Mr. Praznik: On this particular matter, there was, in days gone by, a Treasury Board issue in terms of revenue coming and having to be voted back. So it did not pay the department, because it brought in revenue and had the expense but did not get the money in its budget. But I understand that has been corrected in our system with an additional line that allows those recoveries to come back to the department.

* (1700)

However, in many of these places, locally, there would be a private operator who would have a piece of equipment doing roadwork who would be available to do this work and was saying: listen, why is the Department of Highways competing with me? I am trying to find enough work to keep this piece of equipment in the community. In the long-term interest of the community, having the equipment there for other things was worthwhile then. So previous ministers have made a policy decision, which I support, that we should try not to be competing with the private people in the Department of Highways. We have quite frankly enough of our own work to do to be able to do this. Sometimes there are exceptions to this or cases where we have to, because there is not someone around, but wherever there is a private operator to do these roads–they may be public roads, but they are essentially residential roads. The Province of Manitoba is not in the road-cleaning business in residential subdivisions in Winnipeg or anywhere else for that matter. It is a local area. The problem here is, in many cases, there is not local government. So really the owners in that area have to provide for their own road cleaning. They do the contract. We just do not want to be in there competing with the private sector and end up taking the work away from them and seeing the equipment lost to the particular areas.

Mr. Jennissen: I would just like to make one more observation. It is in the nature of an observation rather than a question. That is, when we do have a particular exception like Simonhouse Bible Camp, which I suppose should be viewed more as a charity rather than a group of cottagers asking for services, which is 35 or so miles out of Cranberry, and if the snowplow comes through and that charitable institution and well-known institution is being used that winter, and they are willing to pay their share, I think we should make an exception. Because in the past we have said, well, no, we will leave it to the private sector. There is nobody there, and nobody wants to go 35 kilometres out to plow a road that is only about a third of a mile long.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, the member's point is absolutely valid. So valid in fact my department now does that road on a cost-recovery basis, I am advised.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.

15.2.(g)(2) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($1,000,000)–pass.

15.2.(h) Planning and Design (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,699,900–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $451,100–pass.

15.2.(j) Northern Airports and Marine Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $3,404,100–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $2,387,200–pass.

15.2.(k) Materials and Research (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,729,600.

Mr. Jennissen: Just one question and that is regarding gravel pits and empty gravel pits filled with water. I am responding basically to a statement I have from a Christine Martel who is an aunt of two children, I guess, that drowned in a gravel pit not too long ago, in fact, May 17, 1998, so just over a year ago. Shantelle was age 7, and a 13-year-old was there, but an 11-year-old and a 7-year-old, I believe, drowned in that particular gravel pit. I think Mr. Ashton from Thompson has also put out a press release on it. The question I have is the safety of those gravel pits. Whose jurisdiction is that once you dig the stuff out and it obviously becomes a hazard for some people? It might be just a very unique happening, very unlikely to happen again but it could, and I wonder how it is being addressed.

Mr. Praznik: With respect to pits, the Department of Energy and Mines does require payment into and maintain a fund for pit rehabilitation. Although all water may not be drained out of it, they do try to rehabilitate pits on Crown lands. I believe most of these issues come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy and Mines, the rehabilitation issues, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed. (2) Other Expenditures $523,900–pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($1,049,200)–pass.

15.2.(m) Traffic Engineering (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $840,400–pass. (2) Other Expenditures $244,400–pass.

15.2.(n) Policy, Planning and Development (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,776,500–pass. (2) Other Expenditures $543,000–pass.

15.2.(p) Drivers and Vehicle Licensing (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $11,849,800.

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, we dealt with the graduated licence issue yesterday. I know the strong feeling that the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) has on this issue. I think he has some very valid points he was making, and I appreciate him making those points. However, there is a wider discussion and I think we got a full range of that discussion. That discussion has not ended by any means, and I am sure that will be revisited again fairly soon.

Regarding driver and vehicle licensing, just one quick question to the minister. There are some more questions I could ask as well. The one about being tested in the language of your choice. Well, I am not sure if language of your choice is the exact word, but I am very happy that he retracted the narrowing down of the languages in which you could take vehicle testing. I am still not clear though about Cree. Is Cree testing not done? Is there no language testing of Cree drivers or any other aboriginal language, Saulteaux or Dene for that matter?

Mr. Praznik: I am not in the habit of blaming staff, but I tell you this. I will defend my staff when I am involved in decisions. I said this very clearly to my staff when this happened. If they are making decisions on matters of policy without the concurrence of the deputy and I, they are on their own. So these words are on the record for my staff here more than members of the Legislature. I will tell you, in ministerial responsibility, I am responsible for this department. They cannot count on their minister backing their decisions if their minister was not part of those decisions. In this particular case, within that particular unit for budget reasons, other considerations, a policy decision was made to draw a line at 100 tests per year and eliminate the service. The decision was made and implemented without either the deputy or I being part of it. As a consequence, I do not feel bound to support that decision, and I have not. There is a lesson in that for all.

Now, was that made for an untoward decision? Absolutely not. Was that made to spite any particular group? Absolutely not. Was that made for any ill purpose? Absolutely not. It was an administrative decision that was made for what staff believed was sound judgment. The only difficulty was it did not have my concurrence or the deputy's and, as a consequence, I do not believe, in the interests of policy, it was a decision that I would support. So, upon learning about it, and again it is a minister's nightmare to find out that policy matters were made in your department without your concurrence for which you are, in this Chamber, held responsible.

So, as the minister, I take the responsibility that, as a new minister, that message may not have been clear to all my staff the way I operate. I will accept that responsibility. Is it such a serious matter that my resignation is pending? I think not, nor has anyone called for it. But the fact of the matter is it is better to learn and develop these relationships on matters that are relatively small and minor in the great scheme of things rather than serious.

I was asked by one of the media, you know, does this result in dismissal? Absolutely not. This was a judgment call that did not have the support of the deputy or minister. Consequently the corrective steps were done, but it was done for, I think, good purpose. The staff who did it, I want to say it very clearly on the record, I do not think they intended any ill will. They were making an administrative judgment.

By the way, there is a dilemma here for ministers. I do not want to so terrorize my department that they are not using some discretion in judgment and are afraid that every decision has to come forward. It is always the balance. I guess the message that I have always tried to convey within departments, and I have not worked with this department for a long period and every minister has different styles, but my view always has been that I like to give my staff a great deal of power to be able to do many things that they have to do without wanting decisions from ministers all the time. The key part of that is there has to be a flow of information within the system so that if I feel that those decisions are not timely or are not supportive, I have my chance to say, hey, wait a minute, I really do not think we should be doing this now.

It is a matter of the balance between encouraging staff to be able to think, make decisions, and do the things we want them to do as administrators, also maintaining my role in ministerial responsibility within the department. So from my point of view, this was a good opportunity to remind everyone in my department about those roles and, again, without causing, I think, any grief to the public. The embarrassment was with me, and I accept that. That is part of ministerial responsibility.

* (1710)

I have asked our staff in this area, in the interests of client service, to give me a report over the next while in how we can accommodate more languages than we do where there is a demand or a need. What we are governed by is the ability for translators. Not all tests can be given in written form in different languages, but certainly what is the written test can be done orally. Where we can conveniently locate translators that we of course can trust and have confidence in, we should make reasonable attempts to facilitate that language demand. I wanted my staff to have some opportunity to think about how we could do this in a reasonable administrative fashion. I do not think if someone wants a test in a particular language where the cost of bringing in a translator is thousands of dollars, we cannot rely on the ability of the translator, that we would provide the test. Also, again, there has to be some reasonable sense that the driver is able to acknowledge and read the road signs and the other kind of rules and regulations so that they are not a menace on the road.

So there is a balance, and it is one in which discretion needs to be applied. I am confident that that will be applied by our administrative staff in the department in bringing this about. If there are aboriginal languages where there is a need to provide what would be the written test orally in a different language, that is something we certainly want to look at. If the member or local MLA has cases where this comes to his attention, I would suggest that he contact directly our staff, Marlene Zyluk, to try to work out some arrangement. Again, we are not going to go to huge expense to do this. We do not have budget for that, but where it is reasonable we will try to accommodate.

The other point I also make and part of the problem here was the ability to find translators in different languages. We traditionally used the Department of Culture and Heritage, and my department does not have all the time in the world to go out and track down translators which were part of the reason some of this happened. So there was some very good administrative reasons behind this, just that they did not fit with the view of client service that I would like to have as minister. We have been able to locate some other people, but it has to be reasonable. The member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) I am sure will appreciate this as a law enforcement officer. The people you use for translation have to be trustworthy and appear to be trustworthy. If someone comes in with a language and asking for test and say, here is the translator, how do we know the person doing the test knows the stuff as opposed to the translator who is also providing the information?

So there is a balance here that my staff have to be comfortable with to ensure the safety of the roads. I guess what I am looking for is rather than hard and fast rules around what services we provide, we should be using one that is reasonable, dependent on time to time for the reasonable availability of translators and the trustworthiness that we can count on that they are in fact neutral and doing a proper job in translation. I have asked our staff to prepare some policy work around this rather than the particular numbers.

Again, I think common sense should apply. The public should be protected and client service should be a part of that. That is what we are attempting to do. I have to tell you, back in the community of Beausejour where both the minister and deputy come from, it was very hard for us to be able to look at our Ukrainian neighbours with names like Horosko and Praznik. It was a little embarrassing to us, but that is life and no harm done. I say that a little tongue in cheek about Andy Horosko and Darren Praznik coming from Beausejour. I was ribbed a little bit about it, all in good jest, because I think ultimately at the end of the day, the client service there being met, I think some good has come out of this.

Again, common sense, client service, reasonable and reliable service without incurring costs, unreasonable costs that we certainly do not have the money for. I am very confident that this will be a matter that will be good. By the way, with respect to my staff, I am very confident in my staff. The staff in this particular area have hosted a national conference of administrators of motor transport, very successfully, are noted across the land for being very efficient administrators. Again, I just think one of those little decisions that are made that take on a huge significance in the media on a particular day, and at the end of it, in the life of the world, we will go on being a fairly good department in the administration of our law. The staff, I know I am quite impressed with in all their duties. So I would like to say that on the record. I thank the member for the question.

Mr. Jennissen: I am looking forward to the language being expanded and any day now, we will have Swahili and Low German, I am sure, but I do thank the minister for that answer. I am looking at an ad for western regional manager for driver testing out of Brandon and that person responsible for the supervision, planning, controlling and organizing of branch offices in Brandon, Portage la Prairie, Dauphin, Thompson and associated mobile testing units. I just want to suggest that because we are dealing with Thompson and Thompson region, a lot of people in northern Manitoba do not speak English; basically in that region, it would be Cree. A lot of people need to be tested on the reserves. I think our people that are involved with that up there have to be sensitive culturally to aboriginal people but also language-wise. I am not suggesting built into this ad, but this might be an opportunity to make that real

Mr. Praznik: With respect to the Cree language, that is reinstated. We had two requests last year for tests in Cree. They were accommodated, and that will be continued, but I just want to point out that we had two requests last year.

Mr. Jennissen: I think this is the appropriate place to ask about photo ID as well. I think that is an excellent program. I am just wondering what is it, every two years we get a new picture? Some of us age very slowly, so I am just wondering, is there a need? Will there at some point be an examination saying, well, every five years? I am not sure if that is realistic. I seem to think that every two years is a little too often, but who knows.

Mr. Praznik: Yes, Mr. Chair, it is every four years. I just had my own redone, but I can tell the member–I know it is your first term, if I am not mistaken, completing his first term in the Legislature–public life does wear heavy on those who endure it. I can tell him that the kind of change in physical features, the greying of the hair, the aging of the skin as it thickens and hardens from the slings and arrows of political debate, I just have to tell him after two years in health care my family and friends are absolutely amazed now that mosquitoes do not even tend to bother me, that they tend to fly around me now, land on my skin, and I do not feel them anymore after two years in health care. Yes, the skin thickens and all of these things can change the image so we would not want the member to be travelling some day on a holiday, perhaps to Mexico or the United States, and using his driver's licence as an ID and be stopped simply because his image no longer in the photo reflects the reality of his endurance in political life.

Mr. Jennissen: Well, that is a point well taken. I am sorry, it was my mistake because I thought it was every two years. Every four years sounds reasonable.

I was not advocating the Belgian model either, where you have a passport, you get it taken once in your lifetime so you have a passport at 21 and you still use it when you are 85. There is no resemblance at all. I was not advocating that extreme, but I thought every two years was too much. If it is every four years, I can live with it.

Just one more question, the photo ID system, the costs and cost recovery. Mrs. Zyluk would probably have some information. It has been a worthwhile venture, I am gathering.

Mr. Praznik: Yes, Mr. Chair, one of the issues that has come up now we are into this discussion, of course, is because when government locates the machines, there are a number of requests I have had to add them in different communities and what are the roles, and of course insurance agencies certainly look at that as a loss leader to bring in business. And we have the questions of the city of Winnipeg, the frustration of only having a number of sites in Winnipeg, albeit their hours of operation have expanded, et cetera, and improved customer service. But there is this issue about how those are allocated, and that is one of the things as a new minister I would like to look at. Are there ways of improving the way in which we allocate, I think, be fair or not be bestowing advantages on one or the other? Is there a potential to expand convenience in the city of Winnipeg. Those are things, there is a lot of consideration, staffing cost, consumer demand, but those are something that every number of years we should be looking to see if we can improve our service delivery in this area, and that is one of things I am doing in the natural course of my responsibilities of ensuring we are meeting and updating our service to the people of Manitoba, our clients.

* (1720)

Mr. Jennissen: A little while ago we also switched to new licence plates and some people were opposed to that either because the model did not meet their needs or there was not French on it or Ukrainian or German, whatever. I think we have grown accustomed to that licence plate. I think it actually looks relatively good. I would suggest a few modifications, but I know you cannot please everybody and beauty is in the eye of the beholder and art differs for everybody, but regarding the plates, is there a lifetime expectancy, like you say, these plates are going to be replaced eventually, let us say in 10 years from now, 12 years from now? Is there a life expectancy on most plates?

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I am learning so much about licence plates. The plates usually have a six year, I guess a manufacturer six-year life expectancy. We know from the previous plates we got 15 years out of them, but at the end of 15 years and perhaps less, as our province continues to prosper and grow under this administration, that you eventually run out of numbers as they work through the system. At some point they require a reissuance just to be able to provide you with a new set of numbers, I am told, or to be rehabilitating old ones.

Mr. Chairperson: 15.2. Highways and Transportation Programs (p) Driver and Vehicle Licensing (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $11,849,800–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $5,768,100–pass; (3) Manitoba Public Insurance Cost-Sharing Agreement $4,812,000–pass.

15.2.(q) Boards and Committees (1) Motor Transport and Highway Traffic Boards (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $376,500.

Mr. Jennissen: I am wondering about appealing a decision by the Highway Traffic Board. On Nairn Avenue, the speed limit was 50 kilometres per hour and it was moved to 60. That seems to have upset some citizens and they appealed that decision. They were told by staff that appeal was not possible. Could the minister explain that? If some people view that as a dangerous speed, why would that not be appealable?

Mr. Praznik: I am going to have my staff–if the member can provide some details as to who was told what to my staff after Estimates I will have this looked into, because we are all looking a little bit miffed at why something would not be appealable. Perhaps there is something we are missing in the information. But I would like to investigate this and I commit, when we do, I will respond. Because it may be after our Estimates, I will undertake to respond in writing to the member an answer because it does seem to me a matter that requires further investigation.

Mr. Jennissen: Last year or the year before at least two of the boards were amalgamated. That is perhaps not the correct word. Instead of two separate bodies on the board, one set of people I believe covered both boards. I do not know if that actually led to any savings or not. What would be the qualifications for being on a motor transport or a highway traffic board? Is there a set qualification other than being a well-known Tory?

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, like so many citizen boards within government, they are appointed by Order-in-Council by cabinet. The idea of course is to ensure that there are a collection of citizens on board such as these. Some may have had experience in the particular area, some may not. One tries to have a variety of life experiences represented on the board and for a very important reason: I think it is very important that that safety valve be there. In many of these cases our administrators who are professional bureaucracy administrators in an area develop for us administrative policies, enforce these policies, and these boards are an extension, I believe, of us as elected members of the people. They are there to remind the administration and the systems, the administrators of the need to apply common sense in the administration of various laws and regulations. Their role as being citizen appointees–some boards require people with certain expertise, others do not.

There are a whole variety of boards appointed in government and, yes, they are appointed by cabinet. They are, in essence, political appointments appointed by the government of the day to be reflective of the views of the government of the day, but they are there ultimately to ensure that citizens have an opportunity to appeal those matters before boards of other citizens, where they can make a case to ensure that, within the laws or regulations of the province, the discretion, et cetera, that should be there, that we would like to see there, are there in implementing decisions.

I just tell you, the Highway Traffic Board, for example, deals with issues such as signage along highways, speed limits on various parts of roads. Although the determination of speeds is recommended by the Department of Highways, on the basis of scientific knowledge and experience and study and control of speeds, et cetera, that board of citizens is there to be able to say from time to time: well, there are issues here that have to be taken into account, and, perhaps, even though the science–you know, life is not exact; perhaps we should use a little bit of this common sense of citizens. So there is an opportunity for individuals to make their case to fellow citizens to ensure, I think, that our laws and our regulations are implemented in a common-sense fashion. If people feel that the policy or rules or decisions of a bureaucracy are not in some manner tested against the common sense of the citizenry in a formal fashion, it is and can be unfair.

Again, if we did not have these boards, then the appeals would likely be directly to the minister. Not that that is wrong in a democracy, but just the pure administrative means of dealing with that makes it very difficult. So I will just give the member an example out of my own area prior to being Minister of Highways.

In many of the cottage subdivisions in the R.M. of St. Clements and the R.M. of Alexander, the speed limits in those subdivisions were 50 kilometres an hour, and many people in the area felt that that was too fast, given the number of children riding bicycles and doing things, and they requested a reduction to 30 kilometres an hour. The engineers within the Department of Highways said that would be too low a speed, it would not work, et cetera. The communities went to the Highway Traffic Board.

The Highway Traffic Board said: you know, we understand that engineering argument, but we also know that, if you posted at 30, maybe you get a little enforcement from time to time, and it will have the effect of slowing the speeds in those subdivisions. The board recommended it on a trial basis in St. Clements. The communities were happy with the result, and that has been expanded to Alexander.

* (1730)

That happened again because of the citizen involvement. I know the member says the requirement of being a Tory or a Tory supporter of the board. One of the beauties about democracy in the appointment of these boards is they do not produce the names by a computer or by some amorphous body that makes recommendations. As my colleague from Lakeside would probably wax very eloquently on this subject in his long experience in democracy, they are appointed by a cabinet that is elected by the citizenry. If the citizenry do not like the decisions of government, they change that government, and a new group comes in and the new group makes the appointments from among their supporters or the people they wish to recommend, and they are judged by the electorate. So, ultimately, the electorate controls those appointments.

I always wonder, and I say this to the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), as a first-time member, I was amazed during the minority government years when we had many more Liberals in this House, and I remember them suggesting that appointments to these boards should be made by some sort of body of prominent citizens who would make recommendations. What is that? What is the tie of that body to the general public? None at all.

The only tie to the general public is, in essence, that their elected government, which they can defeat, makes those appointments, and with the defeat of the government so go the appointments. The new people that they have elected then take the responsibility for making those appointments.

So, although it is easy to craft and say, well, there are Tory supporters, or in a New Democratic Party, they are NDP supporters, or Liberal supporters, that is a fundamental part, I think, of our democratic process. The alternative, which is to have some body of eminent citizens making appointments to boards, or simply the bureaucracy, in essence, making decisions without input, I think, if one thinks it through, is not a desirable feature. So I appreciate the member's comments, but I think also one has to put it into perspective. So, on these boards within our department, they are members appointed by cabinet; they are citizens with a variety of experiences. I tell you as minister responsible, if there are members operating on that board that are making decisions that ultimately I view as not being in the public interest or not exercising their discretion in an appropriate fashion, then I have responsibility to go to cabinet to ask for their removal. Ultimately, that is the public's protection, that they have a direct connection to these people who are making decisions about their lives.

License Suspension Appeal Board is another example where we have put common citizens with a variety of experiences, representative of what we view as the public generally, who then cast judgment on whether individuals get back their licence temporarily when it has been suspended. Quite frankly, I accept wholeheartedly that if my party loses a general election, those who come in who have a mandate from the public have a right to make those appointments and put in whom they wish because they will be held responsible for their decisions. That is far better, I believe, than the alternative, which is to have simply a public administration casting judgment. It is unfair to public servants to ask them to be in that position as well, in many cases, or to have some amorphous or some body of prominent citizens making recommendations who, ultimately, are not answerable to the people at the ballot box.

So I thank the member for the chance to speak about it, but I think it is important from time to time to remind ourselves of how our system does, in fact, work, and that we are, generally speaking, well served by it.

Mr. Jennissen: The minister does make an interesting argument. However, I still have some concerns.

I do not think it is that terribly different from the regional health authorities where it seems that, yes, they are government appointees, but going out of your way to pick out of only one particular political spectrum when you are trying to represent the North, aboriginal people, women, and so on. I know there has been some attempt to address this. I would have preferred what the previous Health minister, previous to the last minister, had suggested, that at least some of the members of those regional health authorities were elected. Now I know we are not talking about Health here, but similar things could happen or should happen.

I am aware that people on those boards are sometimes very good people. That is not my beef. But I would like to see it more transparent. I really would like to see them more reflective, especially larger boards, reflective of everybody, and that the political alliances or linkages would not even exist. That would be ideal.

For example, in the regional health authorities, even excluding people who are retired doctors or nurses who are no longer working, I think those people would be wonderful on a board, and yet they have been excluded. The fiscal transactions are not transparent. We do not know how much the CEOs get paid, how much the chairpeople get paid, and so on. In this case, perhaps it is a little more transparent, but I notice that, even when the boards were rationalized in terms of size of numbers, the cost did not go down. The board expenses are still there

In fact, I would like to know what it does cost for an average meeting. If we take a look here at what is allocated, here are the number of meetings we have, it should be a simple formula. I know last year or the year before when I asked the minister, he was somewhat upset about it, but it turned out to be quite a few thousands of dollars per meeting, nor am I saying they are not doing good work, but I wish that it was a little more transparent who was on these boards and a little more democratic.

Mr. Praznik: It is a very interesting discussion about this and, I think, important to have. First of all, about appointments and transparency of information, this party, this administration, brought in legislation that for the first time in the history of this province took everyone's payment over–I cannot remember, was it $50,000 a year?–and made it public information. For the first time, medical doctors who bill our public system and bill over $50,000 a year had that published. We brought in that legislation to bring in that transparency in Public Accounts.

What was interesting, many of the organizations that support the New Democratic Party very actively, groups like the Manitoba Teachers' Society, opposed that legislation because they did not want to see what they made out of public money published. Very interesting. If you want to balance it, this government has moved a long way in being very innovative in ensuring there is public accountability.

The member referenced regional health authorities, and as Health minister for two years I was very involved in that. When we brought in legislation, we allowed for election or appointment of the boards; that can happen. I say this to him, if one wants elected boards, even some boards, one of the things that I have learned in my experience is elected officials, if they are going to truly be accountable, the only way for elected people to be truly accountable to the people who elect them is they have to have the responsibility and power to tax those people to pay for what they are doing. Not entirely, but at least for their discretionary decisions.

I said this in a conversation that I happened to be part of with Premier Roy Romanow in Saskatchewan and with my colleagues who are Health ministers in Saskatchewan where they brought in elected health boards without a taxing power. They told me it was an absolute nightmare, because they had people who were elected who say: I speak for the people, but I never have to take a penny out of their pocket. So all of the decisions I have to make as an elected member without a taxing authority, well, I could just blame on the provincial government, blame on the federal government, because I never have to actually go back to the taxpayers and tax them for my decisions.

A fundamental principle of democracy is if we are electing people to make decisions on our behalf, they have to have some taxing power to pay for their discretion so that they can be held accountable. We do that with school boards, because they have a taxing power with respect to the special levy. Municipalities have a taxing power which they use; not all their revenue comes from it. We do an income tax share with them, but they still have a taxing power. We as legislators have a taxing power. Federal M.P.s have a taxing power.

As a consequence, when we make decisions that cost our ratepayers money, they know we are going right into their pocket and we have to stand up and defend our decisions. So that is why, quite frankly, I have always said, if you are going to elect health authorities, which may be what Manitobans want, you have to give them a taxing power to be able to pay for their discretionary decisions in order to hold them truly accountable and not just elect a course of people blaming everybody else, and that has been the experience where that has happened.

* (1740)

I also say to the member, we talk about elections. The other part about electing members to boards to be representative is having an annual general meeting to elect members to the boards in the communities is not representative. It is not necessarily representative. We all remember the debates among electing hospital boards over the years where they would have a community meeting and you would have the pro-life and the pro-choice factions, and whoever got the most people to the meeting elected the directors, because that issue was important to them.

First of all, is it a secret ballot? Is everyone who has the right to be part of the electorate actually voting? In most cases not, Mr. Chair. The same is true in Child and Family Services agencies now where members are elected to those agencies at annual general meetings. Is the whole community that we are supposed to represent canvassed by way of a secret ballot election? Not at all. If we are going to do those kind of things to put people on boards, then we better be prepared for a taxing power so people are held responsible. I am really talking about the health authorities and having a proper secret ballot election in which all eligible people have a right to cast the ballot.

They do that in many parts of the United States. They elect many, many public offices. That may be something we want to do, but let us understand how we do it. Simply electing people without a taxing authority, I think–if the member opposite was in government and his party elected health boards without a taxing authority, I would tell you they would be creating an absolute nightmare for themselves that would come home to haunt them, because they would have elected boards blaming them for every decision and never taking responsibility because they never had to tax. I would dare say that the member's view would change very quickly.

I say to him as well, with respect to boards being representative, every government tries to make them representative within their view of what they expect those boards to do. We also know that there are many people who seeks appointment to boards who have a different point of view, who take a view and sometimes are appointed by governments, but ultimately if the government of day is going to be held responsible as it should be in a parliamentary system such as ours, then they have to be responsible for the appointments that they make.

I fully expect that if the party I belong to was not on this side of the House in government, that it would be the right of the party that replaced us to be able to appoint who they so wished to all of the various boards and agencies serving the province because they would be held responsible for the actions of those appointments.

If there was some other vehicle of making those appointments, and I do not know what that would be, and I remember the Liberals under the leadership of now Senator Carstairs talking about some blue ribbon panel of community people nominating a variety of citizens, what would hold those people responsible for their appointments? Nothing. In fact, I would say to the member, what would happen is governments would say, well, we are not responsible for the Highway Traffic Board. We did not appoint them. Go talk to the blue ribbon panel. Well, how do you hold the blue ribbon panel accountable? You cannot.

So in a parliamentary system, and I know the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) often talks in this Assembly about a government. I am sure he would agree as well that if people are going to be selected, it should be by the people and in an election, and when people are elected, they do have to take responsibility for the results of their appointments. The member may take issue with the people we appoint from time to time. He may not like the decisions they make. In an election campaign he will challenge that as part of his campaign and if the electors agree with him as part of the whole package of issues, they will elect him and his party to office and then they can appoint the people they so wish and we will be judged by the electors.

If the people of this province are happy with the service they have had as part of the package of issues and re-elect us, then they will have spoken and cast judgment on these issues as well, and that is the nature of our parliamentary system. So although from time to time we may not like the people appointed, we may not think they are always representative of the whole community, the whole community speaks in a provincial general election, and they return a government. That government has responsibility for the delivery of service, the appointment of boards, to directors, "Crown" corporations and agencies, and that government has to live with the responsibilities of those decisions.

Part of my ministerial responsibility, should any one of the boards for which I am appointed and I am responsible for, behaves in a manner that is irresponsible or illegal or otherwise, I have the responsibility to take to cabinet the appropriate papers to ensure that they are removed, and cabinet has that responsibility to remove and change them. We are ultimately accountable to the electorate of this province.

I know of no other way to do it, other than the way the Americans do it, than post those positions by electors, by votes at various election times, elect all those particular positions as the Americans do from president to dogcatcher, but then, who do you hold responsible? If there is one criticism I think we can say of the American system of government is lack of responsibility because everybody else can point to somebody else who is holding up whatever has to be done.

When you elect a dogcatcher in a county, the mayor of that county is not responsible for that dogcatcher anymore. That dogcatcher is responsible only to the electorate. When the dogcatcher is appointed or hired by the mayor, if that person is not doing the job, the mayor is responsible. That is a difference in the system. So I appreciate the member's concern. He has full right to criticize whom we appoint, to criticize their decisions and ask that we be judged on the basis of whom we appoint and what we do, but that is the nature of our system.

I will tell you I have come to appreciate it after 11 years, and if my party is no longer in government after this or another one coming or another general election, I accept wholeheartedly that those who replace us have the right to change all of those appointments and have the responsibility to stand by the people they appoint. Should we be re-elected, it is our right to appoint and our responsibility to stand by the decisions that they make or to replace those individuals.

Mr. Jennissen: Madam Chair, yes, that was an interesting exposition, Mr. Minister. Still, I would take my chances with a blue-ribbon panel, basically because I do think these are community leaders that represent a larger view, whereas if you appoint purely politically, that is, I think, a much narrower view. I guess there are certainly healthy differences of opinion here, but what I was getting at was not that if we were in power, our political party, would we be caught in a really bad position because we might also have to appoint people on boards?

I was hoping, in terms at least of the regional health authorities, that we would follow what the former Minister McCrae suggested, and that is that at least two members of that regional health authority were elected, not necessarily everybody. But at least the people could, you know, express their opinion in a general sense, and some of those people on that board could be elected. I mean, there are various ways of doing this.

Right now, the public is very cynical, and they see a lot of these board appointees as purely people that are political opportunists or political patronage, whatever word you wish to use. I do not know if that is always fair because I know that a lot of those people on those boards are good people, and I want to draw the distinction. I do not know of anybody on those boards that is incompetent or not a good person. That is not the point. It is the process that I am questioning.

In terms of transparency, I do not know about these boards, but I certainly know in the regional health authority there is no way in hell, pardon the expression, we can find out what the CEO makes or what the chairperson of the regional health authority makes. We cannot find out how much money is being spent. Whether that bureaucratic level is taking away tons of money that should be going to the front-line health care, I do not know. I know that is off the topic, but the reason I am asking is because I think we want to use our money in the best possible way.

That is why I am asking the question. For example, there are $55,000 being allocated to the board here; I presume those are stipends. The boards have shrunk in size, and I do not know if the money has shrunk in size. There is also $46,000 allocated for accommodation. I presume most of the board members are from Winnipeg, so I do not know where that accommodation money goes. It may be just my ignorance, but I would like some clarification on that.

Mr. Praznik: You know, Mr. Chair, I do not mean to be too critical of members opposite, but when I was former Health minister, I attended quite a number of annual meetings of regional health authorities, South Westman, I think North Eastman, Interlake. Do you know what? All of those meetings, I cannot recall one New Democratic Party MLA being in attendance and asking those questions of the board. Is that not interesting? It sounds like a little bit of laziness on the part members opposite because many of those questions were asked.

I remember at the South Westman, there were questions asked about the cost of administration, and the CEO and the chair of the board gave a very extensive explanation of what they had done in reorganizing their staff and their administrative lines and that information was provided, but, you know, I do not recall one New Democratic Party MLA being there to ask the question. Boy, it sort of sounds to me that people are not taking advantage of opportunities that are there to garner the information.

* (1750)

So I say to the member I would really invite him the next time that the Norman Regional Health Authority, as a right as a citizen of that district, as a local MLA, to attend that meeting and ask those questions. With respect to anybody in those organizations who is making over whatever it is, $50,000 a year, you know there is a catch-up period in terms of fiscal years, which I imagine that report will be coming up shortly, if it has not already. If he looks through there, anybody who is making that will be listed. The salaries of the CEOs in the Winnipeg Hospital Authority, those things all come out in due course as part of the information. I cannot remember the name of the legislation that we passed that requires that to happen. So it is there. Those questions can be asked, but I tell him this. We do not live in a void. When all of those facilities were being run by basically private boards, even if they were public organizations or private corporations or municipal corporations, none of that information had any hope of ever being made public.

Did the Grey Nuns publish all their costs and salary levels for what they paid people at St. Boniface? No. Did Health Sciences Centre, who was not controlled at all by government, had an independent board of directors who made the decisions, did they publish the salaries of their senior executives? No. Never once did a New Democratic Party government require that. Not at all. So let us not make it sound as if somehow we have taken something back. In fact, if anything, we have advanced with our legislation of these regional health authorities. We have advanced the level of public disclosure and information and availability of public disclosure on the medical side than ever before in the history of this province.

Now if the member had come here and said: you know, I recognize you have moved forward. You may not have moved as far ahead as I would have liked, I would have said, okay, that is a fair comment, but to be critical of it when you look at where we are coming from, the member is not being fair at all. Again, millions, hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars of public money essentially being spent by private and municipal health corporations without any degree of the accountability that we now have in place, is it perfect? No. But it sure is a lot better than it was in the past, and I think that is important to appreciate and understand.

With respect to boards in this particular department, I will endeavour to get a list for the member of the boards that we appoint, what we pay in per diems, and roughly the number of meetings or times they sat. I will get my staff to lay that out and we will provide it to the member.

Mr. Jennissen: There is certainly a difference of opinion here, perhaps of misinterpreting fact, but I am under the impression, and I hate to go back to regional health, this is not Health Estimates, that for the CEOs and for the politically appointed chairpersons, there is no way you can find out how much money they make, nor how much they spend per meeting, because I am pretty sure that some of my staff have tried to get that information.

If the minister says that that information is easy to get, then I would appreciate finding out how much the CEO of the Norman Regional Health Authority and the president of that authority make per year. I would like to have that on record. I have not been able to find that, and I do not know any way of getting it either. The minister says it is wide open, it is a wide open procedure. I do not believe that, not for a minute. I think, in fact, it is exempted by Freedom of Information, but I could be wrong. If the information is that easy to get, I would really appreciate if he would make an effort to get that information to me, because I have not been able to get it yet.

Mr. Chairperson: Could I ask the honourable members, if they want to enter into debate on health care, it might be much more appropriate if they did it under the health authority, not under the Department of Highways and Transportation. We get into that debate here, we could be here for a long time.

Mr. Jennissen: You make a very good point. Let us continue with the line by line.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass. 15.2.(q)(1)(b) Other Expenditures $199,200–pass.

15.2.(q)(2) License Suspension Appeal Board and Medical Review Committee (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $248,000.

Mr. Jennissen: Just a quick comment, because I know we do tend to get into some almost theological debates here, but I am very happy that they are free and free ranging. I appreciate the minister's candour as well and that of his staff, and sometimes we come from different philosophical directions and we agree to disagree. On the License Suspension Appeal Board and Medical Review, is that where we are, Mr. Chair?

Mr. Chairperson: License Suspension Appeal Board.

Mr. Jennissen: There is legislation before the House about offroad vehicles and drinking and driving and so on. In that same ballpark, I am wondering if I could table or give the minister, to make it easier, just this letter, it is actually an e-mail from Mr. John Goddard, he may already have it, from Treherne, who is talking not so much about the licensing aspect of it as the fact that we need to put more money into the snowmobiling sports, Snoman, and so on.

I am sure, although I do not remember exactly, because I have not looked at it for little while, whether he is advocating some kind of break on fuel tax as well, but the argument he makes is fairly good, that the snowmobile sport does bring a lot of money into the province and perhaps we need to pay more attention to it. We certainly are doing that on the safety side, but I think he is also talking about some other incentives. So I will just table that with the minister, if he would have a look at Mr. Goddard's e-mail.

Mr. Chairperson: Just for clarification, you are just passing this to the minister, you are not tabling it?

Mr. Jennissen: Yes. That is right.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.

15.2.(q) Boards and Committees (2) License Suspension Appeal Board and Medical Review Committee (b) Other Expenditures $115,200–pass.

15.2.(q)(3) Taxicab Board (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $335,500.

Mr. Jennissen: Just for clarification. We are on Taxicab Board? Is that right?

Mr. Chairperson: Yes. That is where we are.

Mr. Jennissen: Again, the minister and I got–the only time I think last we got a little heated was over the taxicab issue. I do not want to resurrect that whole debate over Blueline again, but it was a question of converting luxury cab licences to regular licences. The argument that could be made–I know certainly David Orlikow made it, and he used to bug me about it quite regularly. I feel kind of guilty not raising the issue. He thought there was a better way for us to raise money if the people involved, that is, the people converting to luxury licences to regular licences, would have paid market value for them. That money could have been used for the cab industry or even for the province, whatever. That apparently did not happen. I wonder if we could just–I do not want to spend too much time on that to clarify that situation, where we are with that.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chairman, I am really not familiar enough with the details of this issue in 30 seconds to give the member an answer to it. I gather we will be spending probably some more time tomorrow or next week in these Estimates. If not, I could perhaps provide an answer in writing to the member.

Mr. Chairperson: The hour being six o'clock, committee rise.

Call in the Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): The hour being six o'clock, this House now adjourns and stands adjourned until tomorrow (Thursday) at 10 a.m.