Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.

This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply will be meeting in Room 254 and will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Highways and Transportation. When the committee last sat it had been considering item 15.1.(b)(1) on page 76 of the Estimate book. Shall that item pass?

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the minister a few questions, and I know he has answered some of those in the House already, but just so that it is on the record and I am clear on it. On July 30, 1995, there was a sealcoat failure on provincial trunk highway No. 6 which resulted in damage to a number of vehicles that was fairly costly to Manitobans. I believe the figure for that was $302,310.56. Is that correct?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Chairman, the member for Flin Flon mentions a figure of $302,000. That was the total figure, but there were three components to that figure. MPIC picked up about $70,000 of cost, and Pounder Emulsions picked up about $125,000 of cost which left in the vicinity of $125,000 for the province as cost. So it was not 100 percent provincial cost.

Mr. Jennissen: That was one of the reasons I was asking the question, because I am going with Order-in-Council 567 dated on October 30, 1996, and the last paragraph before the minister's signature, the last WHEREAS states: And WHEREAS it is deemed advisable to designate an existing appropriation of the Department of Highways and Transportation for the purpose of payment of settlement of this claim. I was wondering whether the whole claim came out of the department's budget. That is not the case. The minister says 100-and-some thousand. Can the minister tell me how many vehicles were involved in this? How many vehicles were damaged and had to be repaired?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, we are not positive, but we believe the number of claims was in the vicinity of 200 to 250. If the member would like that number substantiated we will go back into the files and find the exact number.

Mr. Jennissen: I thank the minister for that. A considerable time ago, Engineering Aides 2 were under pressure. Some of them were let go, some of them were put, I believe, on seasonal status from full time, and I believe the nonseasonal status lasted until January 1, 1997, but I do not have a really good picture of where that is at now with Aides 2.

I am just wondering if the minister could tell me of the original number of Aides 2, let us say, in 1995, how many of them are still with the department, how many of them are seasonal, how many of them have been shifted and so on. I do not have a real feel for the figures.

Mr. Findlay: The beginning number the member asked for, 140; current number of Aides 2 is 75. Many left to find other employment; many went on the re-employment list.

Mr. Jennissen: One of the questions we have dealt with before is, how does this direction of laying off people like that and also offloading some of the gravel roads and so on and some of those initiatives and closing yards, how does that fit in with the overall strategy of the government of decentralization where they were going to move services from Winnipeg out into the outlying regions? Now it seems that there are all kinds of cutbacks which cannot be good for northern and rural communities.

* (1440)

Mr. Findlay: Certainly, there is an element of truth to what the member says, that reduction in jobs is not healthy for communities. On the other side of the coin is that the government is charged with delivering its services as efficiently as possible and to employ an individual where there is enough work for an individual, not to employ two individuals for one person's level of work. Those are the kinds of adjustments that governments right across this land have had to go through, because at the end of the day our mission is to maximize the number of dollars that can be spent on road surfaces, because our mission is roads, to maintain roads, a safe and reliable state of affairs for the travelling public.

So there are some unfortunate challenging decisions that have to be made and are consistently made by all governnments today to be sure that the workforce is right for the level of workload that exists in any region or in the province as a whole.

Mr. Jennissen: In the minister's opening statement, he made reference to the fact that between last year's Estimates and now that there is a drop of some 21 SYs or perhaps the more firm figure would be 28, and I am trying to sort of put those figures together in--you know, multiplied by the last few years, and they do not seem to add up to some other figures I am getting.

I am not accusing the minister of anything, but I would like to at least get straight in my own mind who was using what figures and what they do mean. Now, I have other figures from the MGEU and others which state that since the last five, six years we have lost considerably more jobs than would be indicated by the 21 or 28 this year, and I would like to read into the records, if the minister would indulge me, the cost of privatization and municipal offloading by the Manitoba Department of Highways and Transportation from 1990 to 1996 and have the minister comment on this. This is four or five paragraphs.

Between March 1990 and March 1996, the Manitoba government reduced its Department of Highways and Transportation workforce by 583 employees through privatization and municipal offloading, and yet over this same period expenditures and highway maintenance operations increased by 47.8 percent or by about $43 million.

The tables that follow use the government's own reports in documenting the cost of privatization and municipal offloading for the period from 1990 to 1996, and I can go into those tables later on.

On April 1, 1997, the Manitoba government will again be laying off the Department of Highways and Transportation employees. The Manitoba Government Employees' Union estimates that there will be about 150 fewer rural Department of Highway employees in Manitoba in 1997. An estimated 20 regular full-time employees will be laid off and another 130 Department of Highways seasonal employees will not be recalled to work this year.

Some of these seasonal employees will be those that have been converted from regular civil service status to seasonal status over the past few years. In addition to privatization and offloading onto municipal governments, this year the Manitoba government will be reorganizing highway maintenance stations around the province. Twenty-six stations will be closed and the work distributed to larger area yards.

The privatization and offloading onto municipalities includes dragging, snowplowing, gravelling, grass cutting, brush and weed control operations. A 1994 independent study by the accounting firm of Ernst & Young on the cost of privatizing highway maintenance in British Columbia, I conclude that it is costing the B.C. government an extra $19 million per year more than it would cost under government operations. The accounting firm says that between 1988 and 1994 B.C. taxpayers have paid out more than $100 million to the private sector that could have been saved if highway maintenance had stayed within government service.

So there are quite a number of allegations or statements in this, and I would like the minister to comment on those.

Mr. Findlay: I think the member asked--well, he asked me to comment on those statements, but there is a little bit of correction, I think. I will give the numbers that we have for the member. I think you mentioned '90 to '96, if I am not mistaken. Over that time frame, the number is actually 417 SYs reduced, and I will read them sequentially: In '91-92, there was 96; in '92-93, there was 41.4; in '93-94, 43; in '94-95, 62.5; in '95-96, 38; in '96-97, 31.

Now, out of those numbers, you will find they do not total 417. The difference is 105 because 105 positions were transferred. In '94-95, 22 were transferred to surveys, and '93-94, 83 were transferred to Government Services, so 105 were transferred out of the 417 reduced. That gives us a reduction of 313 actual SYs, and that takes us from '90 to '96. One other number I can give the member is that in '97-98, this budget year, the reductions will be 28, the lowest reductions in recent years.

Mr. Jennissen: The people who were transferred, did any of those people lose their jobs?

Mr. Findlay: Of the 105? Mr. Chairman, we are not aware. Those are the SYs that were transferred to those two departments, but what happened to those positions, you would have to ask them. That is going back three and four years ago.

Mr. Jennissen: So the minister says, though, that in that same period where MGEU alleges 500-plus jobs were lost, actually only 313 jobs were lost. That is still a significant number of jobs.

The other part of that equation was that the MGEU was saying the Manitoba Department of Highways and Transportation technical maintenance and operational expenditures between 1991 and '95-96 has increased from approximately $90 million to $134 million, which was an increase of 47.8 percent. Can the minister confirm that that is correct?

Mr. Findlay: Could I ask the minister to clarify what number he is using there? Did you say technical maintenance?

* (1450)

Mr. Jennissen: Which excludes capital expenditures, Administration and Finance, Driver and Vehicle Licencing, Boards and Committees. The point, I think, that the MGEU is making that there was a considerable increase in that level of expenditure, while about almost a third--a tremendous decrease in terms of manpower--I should not use the percentage a third--or woman power, work power, people power.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, we have a hard time just figuring out where the numbers the member has quoted actually come from. Our actual maintenance figure that we use has been consistently the same year in and year out, with very little variation; the maintenance costs run around $55 million. I can probably indicate one of the possible misunderstandings that has happened, and the people who put the numbers together, is that previously the department did not account for such expenditures as rent for facilities, space, or for paying for employee benefits. Those are currently now charged to the department, no net effect difference on government, just where it is accounted for and how it is charged.

Over the time frame the member has mentioned, that change in accounting actually happened, so what it would do is give it an apparent increase in costs, that the department spent more in a particular area, but you take government as a whole, there was no net increase of that magnitude whatsoever. It just shifted from Finance over to us as charges that we had to account for.

But the government was paying them before as a whole. The government today through the Department of Highways is paying for the same costs, so that could lead to an explanation of the discrepancy because there is certainly no increase in maintenance activities that we do in terms of those kinds of dollars.

Mr. Jennissen: Is the minister saying then that the MGEU statement which reads as follows, that the costs of technical maintenance and operation expenditures have increased by almost 50 percent and overall staffing has been reduced by 32.5 percent in a period of five to six years--that is what I get from them. Is the minister saying that is not correct then?

Mr. Findlay: I am saying that they are not really comparing apples to apples there. I think there are some other activities that were charged that are identified as increases but were really shifted from one department of government to another department, so they are not really comparing apples to apples.

Mr. Jennissen: In terms of the feared direction this government is taking of more and more privatization, the minister is aware of the Ernst & Young report out of B.C., and I would like to just quote one very short paragraph that came out of that study: Access costs of this magnitude are not justifiable in relation to the results which were possible with the ministry's original program. Indeed, if as much effort and financial resources had been invested in simply improving the ministry's original program instead of privatizing it in its current form, it is very likely that significant different outcomes and costs would have been the result. The actual costs do not, therefore, appear to be consistent with due regard for efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the public sector.

Mr. Findlay: I think it is fair to say that we take a very pragmatic approach here in evaluating who or where services should be delivered. We are constantly looking for greater efficiency and lower cost per unit of work wherever that can be obtained, and if we cannot obtain it by changing the way we do things, we do not change.

We are fully aware of B.C.'s example and Alberta's example. The fact that they have done something that increases their cost is unacceptable, and we do not intend to operate that way. We are very pragmatic. Where we can save costs, we will do something differently. Same as within the department, if we can save costs by organizing and doing things in a different way, we will do it.

Our mission is to maximize the dollars we can spend on road services and bridges because that is where our demand is in terms of public service. Along the way, we will use whatever vehicle, whether it is private or public, that accomplishes that with the greatest efficiency and the least cost to the taxpayer.

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, I hear the minister. I am just still fearful that behind the words there still lurks the government's agenda which I think is more and more following what Mike Harris and Klein are doing, and privatization is definitely in the works.

I would like to end with a Ernst & Young study statement, just a very short one again, which states from the experience of B.C. that privatization was a politically mandated program which would not have been implemented in its current form if adequate research, impartial analysis of alternatives and careful re-engineering of maintenance processes had been performed before the decision to privatize the program had been made.

So I am hearing the minister say we have learned from the mistakes of others, and we are not going to go into privatization purely for ideological reasons. Is that correct?

Mr. Findlay: Yes.

Mr. Jennissen: Could the minister give us an update on another area of concern, especially in rural communities, and that is not only the gravel road initiative where municipalities take over what was formerly run by the provincial government but also the possible and the actual closure of a number of highway yards.

There is still some confusion of the exact numbers, although the minister has given me some figures. Is the minister aware of that impact on rural and northern communities?

Mr. Findlay: Along the line of what we have talked about earlier, Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that the department continue to streamline and reorganize its operations to fundamentally be sure that when you hire three people, there is enough work for three people. If there is only enough work for two people in that particular activity in that location, you should only have two people hired. Our ambition is to constantly do things that increase efficiency, decrease our costs and increase the number of dollars spent on the actual road surfaces.

The member is talking about maintenance yards. We did an assessment along the line I have just identified, reorganizing the number of yards we need and the amount of supervisory staff we need regarding the operation of those yards. Some 18 yards were involved in the process. Four ended up being closures, Rapid City, Sandy Lake, San Clara and Grandview, and 13 yards were changed from main yards to support yards. Effectively, that meant that in each of those yards there was no longer a need for a supervisor. They would be supervised from an adjoining yard, but the support yard would keep the people who were actually working on the roads, running the equipment, and would keep the equipment at that particular yard in the 13 locations.

So we had at the end of the day 14 relocations and 17 layoffs. The primary number of layoffs were in supervisory staff where it was clearly deemed there was oversupervision occurring in many yards.

Mr. Jennissen: Is the yard at Wabowden affected as well? I am not clear at this stage whether that is operational as always or whether there was a change in the offing there as well.

Mr. Findlay: No change in Wabowden. If the member would like--I read him the four closures. I can read him the 13 yards that were moved from main to support, if he would like.

* (1500)

Mr. Jennissen: I thank the minister for the offer, but he has already given me that information. I appreciate that.

I do have some specific questions also on other roads. Now, some of these have been discussed earlier. In fact, one of my Liberal colleagues had mentioned road No. 287, Cormorant, Manitoba. I think the minister said he would look at that. I believe the same member raised the Henderson Highway on the drive to Lockport issue, the parking along the side of the road which was another concern.

I have another one, a letter here, a concern about a Mr. Phillips complaining about the snow clearing in Manigotagan. I can read it to the minister if he would like. I am not sure if he has the letter to this effect. It goes like this. It is actually a note of his complaint: Henry Phillips called to complain about the road-clearing in his community. Apparently, the Department of Highways had some delays in getting to the town from Bissett. The concern is that there is no plan B and that people may have to go a long period of time where in the case of an emergency, they cannot go anywhere.

Now, it is more complex than that, but that is basically the gist of that.

Mr. Findlay: Before I can answer, Mr. Chairman, I have to ask the member, is this a particular snowstorm, or is this deemed to be a complaint that happens on a regular basis?

Mr. Jennissen: I had the feeling that this occurs quite regularly, that this is not the first time.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, the reason I asked the question is because a heavy snowstorm really puts the department under tremendous pressure to get to every location as fast as they would under a light snowstorm. The priority for the department is to be sure that they get the main roads running first, and then they move to community roads or roads within communities. That has been the normal process for years and years.

We have to be given some leeway depending on the kind of storm and the availability of workforce to deal with the storm. We cannot have in our yards enough equipment to handle the worst storm in 10 years in the shortest possible time frame. We are positioned to handle every storm, but if we get severe storms, particularly storms that have prolonged wind associated with them, there are going to be delays that maybe some of the public does not think are acceptable, but it is fundamental that you can only do so much under those kinds of circumstances that is reasonable regarding cost.

We certainly do respond as quickly and as often as much as we can to those challenges, but we cannot offer the perfect solution in every storm for everybody. The priority is the main roads first and foremost and then the community roads.

Mr. Jennissen: I did receive, though, a number of complaints about places where apparently the gravel road snow clearance had been contracted out, and the concern of the people who phoned tended to be that the contractor--it might be a local person with a snowplow--was much more concerned about getting his own driveway and that of his friends plowed out while leaving others stranded. That was really sort of a bitter feeling from the neighbours.

Now, I do not know if this is a chronic situation, but I have had a number of calls that went something like that. They do not take the public good seriously. They are more interested in cleaning their stuff first, and then as an afterthought maybe do what they were contracted to do in the first place. I am just wondering how you monitor something like that.

Mr. Findlay: Truthfully, the department has not had many complaints in that context. One of the things that we do with communities that do say, you are not responding fast enough, we say, we are prepared to contract with you to do the work. You see the priorities as your streets first. Whatever we normally cost out, we are prepared to pay you on a contract basis so you as a community with your equipment, which normally they have for their own streets, can clear your main streets and be paid by us.

That is happening in many communities. It gets away from this business that we cannot get there fast enough in their mind. In some places it may be a private contractor that we are contracting with, but we do not get the kind of complaints, very often, the member is talking about. That contractor knows that his ability to renew the contract is in jeopardy if he does not do a good job.

Mr. Jennissen: Regarding snow removal, and I have mentioned this, I think, at least twice before, there is still a concern with snow removal to the Simonhouse Bible Camp which is outside Cranberry Portage on the Highway No. 39, about maybe 15 to 20 kilometres in from the junction.

Traditionally, when the Highways department plowed the road, they would make a pass into the bible camp, which by the way is open all year and would save those people a lot of money. But now the attitude is, well, contract with private contractors, they have to come out either from The Pas or Cranberry and make a special trip in. They are being charged a lot of money, and this is a charitable institution for charitable purpose. It serves everybody and we are just mystified why they have to go through that rigamarole, why we cannot simply do as we have always done. We make a pass on the main roads, then we go in there, clean it out. Charge them, you know, at par; they are not averse to paying their fair share. But they are somewhat unhappy with the fact that they have to make special arrangements to get that road plowed, and they never did this before.

Mr. Findlay: The bible camp that the member refers to is a bible camp on private property with a private road. It is not a municipal road and our responsibility is to clear municipal roads. At the same time we do not want to unduly compete with the private sector. The private sector, they are willing to do the work. We believe it is only right that government allow the private sector to create the jobs associated with that kind of work.

When there are particular hardship cases, in the case as the deputy has mentioned, there was a particular situation last winter that was a real hardship case. We moved in and dealt with it, but a general rule of thumb is the private sector gets very irritated if we start competing with them on--basically on a level playing field with their own tax dollars competing against them.

This bible camp, we are prepared to help them find an appropriate contractor to do the work. Now, if there is such that costs are completely out of line with what maybe our costs would be, we are always prepared to revisit because every particular case is unique in some particular aspect. Generally speaking, we want to promote local jobs through the local private sector industry, and we will maintain provincial roads but we cannot start pulling in and plowing out private lanes; otherwise, you set a precedent there. Why not plow every private lane in the province? It is just not feasible. It is not what government has ever done nor what government should do.

Mr. Jennissen: Well, I understand the minister's point of view, but we are dealing with something that had always been done in the past and it seemed to be reasonably costed. What is happening now is they cannot find private sector people to come in and do it. They can sometimes, but they have to wait a long time and it is prohibitively expensive. I think it is $500 to do the job, whereas it would take the Department of Highways like, I do not know, I am guessing 15 minutes or 10 minutes to whip in and out of there because they are there anyway.

Now, I know that we have made an issue of this before, and I have certainly phoned Mr. Ron Meisters out of The Pas. I want to commend the gentleman; he is excellent, and he is very good, but he is toeing, sort of, the government line. He has been told a certain thing and he is sticking with it and he is very good, but I am just thinking, you need to lean on him a little bit and say, soften up, Ron.

I am getting at just one particular institution that is far from, I hate to use the word "civilization," but it is isolated. They have no other way of being serviced. They are a charitable institution. They are used by a lot of people across this province. I again plead with the minister to make that an exception. I am not asking for a lot of private lanes to be plowed out. I understand that, but this was something that had always worked in the past. It was always reasonable, they were willing to pay their fair share, but there is no private contractor willing to take that on. That puts them in a real bind.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, we are of the impression that the private contractor from Cranberry Portage was interested in that kind of work. That was the information we had last fall. I will commit to the member that we will have staff follow up with the bible college to determine if they cannot get that any kind of reasonable pricing from a private contractor, we will look at whether it is a unique situation and determine the pros and cons of the government doing it as opposed to the private sector.

So we will commit that to the member. If they are particularly isolated so that the costs of transporting equipment to there are very high, we will revisit it and deal directly with the bible camp.

* (1510)

Mr. Jennissen: I appreciate if the minister would do that because my information from them appears to be that the contractors are not interested. It is not worth their while to bring their equipment in which might be 100 miles away, and it is I believe, at least, I would guess, around 30 kilometres from Cranberry that would be the nearest place. I thank the minister for that answer.

A few other questions. One of them is looking at the Capital budget and the work being done in the North, there is reference to a bridge at 391 between Leaf Rapids and Lynn Lake. Now, the map that I have, it appears to be something other than the Churchill location, the Churchill River. So is it just a mistake on the map or am I just misreading that map?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, it is a strengthening of Churchill River bridge.

Mr. Jennissen: Okay. Which is then the bridge that is three, four kilometres outside of Leaf Rapids, because the circle that I saw indicates much further up, closer to Lynn Lake. So I presumed it was just an error. Okay.

I have talked with the Chief of the Moose Lake Band, Mr. Phillip Buck, and they are very concerned about the nature of that road. I do not remember the exact number of the highway. I think it is PR 384; it is PR 384. That road is in fairly rough shape and extremely dusty in the summer as well.

Is there a possibility in the future that this Department of Highways together with the feds and Repap could be developing a road that would be a lot shorter, that, in fact, parallels or is the same as the winter road whereby Moose Lake loggers haul their wood to the Repap mill? In other words, that road could be shortened considerably. Is there anything in the works there at all?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, the department has certainly looked at it. A report has been done, but the member mentions other parties involved in cost sharing, and it is a fairly expensive bit of activity there and a tremendous benefit to Repap, and also a benefit to the federal government, if we do that sort of thing. At this stage, the other parties are not prepared to cost-share, so it is sort of in limbo, but the report does exist, and the shorter road the member mentions has been identified. I also note that Moose Lake is looking at extending the road further east past Moose Lake over to the other side of Cedar Lake to a cutting area over there. I mean, there is not only the new road but there certainly has been some discussion, that I have been aware of, of extending it, moving towards Highway 6.

I know the benefits would be great for the area, but when you got the funds we have over a tremendous network and the demands we have, it is very difficult for us to get there unless the partners are prepared to cost-share, and at this point we have not had that commitment.

Mr. Jennissen: Regarding the flood agreement with South Indian Lake and the long-range plan to build a road from South Bay to South Indian Lake, at what stage is that now?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, an engineering study on that particular piece of construction is well underway. The study will ultimately put some numbers and figures on the table, and it will be dealt with at that time.

Mr. Jennissen: Yes, I would really appreciate it if the minister would give me a little bit of a time line on that, like, are we looking at a five-year, 10-year, or two-year? As well, could the minister indicate, as was in the original flood agreement, whether or not that all-weather road will include a bridge?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, the commitment that the member for Flin Flon refers to was about a 10-year window in a Hydro agreement. We believe there are five or five-plus years left in that agreement. The business of a ferry versus a bridge, it will have to be a ferry just based on cost.

Mr. Jennissen: So then we cannot really say it is an all-weather road. Still those people would be stranded seasonally whenever that water of the river breaks up in the spring and whenever it freezes in the fall.

Mr. Findlay: It will be the ferry when the season allows the ferry to run. It would be winter road when the season allows it to be used. Yes, there will be disruptions at certain points in time based on weather in the spring and fall, but what you might want to do and what you can afford to do sometimes are different things. The cost here is just, at this point in time, prohibitive to build a bridge.

Mr. Jennissen: So then the word "all-weather" is not really applicable. It is a road that is used most of the time but is not an all-weather road.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, the department has always and consistently argued that the combination we are referring to is technically an all-weather road. One can find fault in that argument, but it is one that we have had to live with simply because that is the best that we can afford to do in balance of all the other demands and requests on the government through its Highways Capital budget.

Mr. Jennissen: While we are on the subject of ferry crossings, the ferry at Cross Lake, were there problems with that this year? Were there significant cost overruns?

Mr. Findlay: Cost overruns?

Mr. Jennissen: Yes.

* (1520)

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, our operation of it is on a 14-hour-a-day basis, and where communities want to run it longer, if they are prepared to pay for that additional time, we are prepared to operate it longer. There had been some agreement where they would be paying for it in the past, for the extended hours, but I gather they ran it for a while and then saw fit to cease the additional hours of operation. Our fundamental principle is 14-hours-a-day operation, and on that basis there were no cost overruns.

Mr. Jennissen: Is there any long-range planning with regard to Highways 374 and 373, Norway House, Cross Lake, in putting in bridges to those two communities, or is that simply not in our long-range plans?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, both bridges the member mentions are in the $8-million to $10-million category, and the traffic volume just does not indicate that we should be spending that kind of money in those locations at this time. So the traffic does not warrant that kind of expenditure for those bridges.

Mr. Jennissen: Can I conclude then that the only main expenditure this year on 374 and 373 is the one bridge that is being upgraded this year?

Mr. Findlay: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will go back to last year. There was a $1.6 million project of grade and calcium base on 373 from PTH 6 easterly for 12.6 kilometres. That was completed last year. An additional $2.2 million of grade and calcium base from 12.6 easterly of Highway 6 to Sipiwesk, that is currently in the process of completion. About 25 percent of it remains to be done.

The bridge at Mulligan River, a million-dollar bridge, has been programmed along with environmental assessment survey and design on 373 from Maniago River to 15 kilometres north. That environmental assessment survey and design is underway, and that has to be done before you can program any actual work on the particular road.

So there is the bridge plus completion of projects that led to about 25 kilometres of grade and calcium base course on 373 east of Highway 6.

Another project from Norway House north is the gravel road stabilization for some 14 kilometres.

Mr. Jennissen: When we started the Estimates process quite a number of days ago, because it has been dragging and skipping a fair bit, I asked the minister for an update on how the flood had damaged southern roads.

Quite a bit of time has passed since then, and I am wondering if the minister has a little bit more information and perhaps even a map to indicate which southern roads have been affected and some ballpark figures in terms of damages.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, it is very preliminary yet to know what the total cost is in southern Manitoba for bridge and road reconstruction after the flood. We have a running chart that probably has at least 50 different projects or roads or items on it, and the total is currently $7 million with several items with no estimate yet, because it is still under water or still has not got a firm figure. So a probable round ballpark figure would be $10 million for road and bridge reconstruction. That is very preliminary and subject to variations up or down. There are a lot of--as I say, almost 50 different locations involved, and it runs from some locations, a $10,000 cost to other locations of $1.3 million in one location.

I am sure the member saw the stretch of Highway 75 where the concrete was just like an earthquake had hit it. That will be a million dollars plus, for sure, but the highway will be open and running before the reconstruction is done whether it is on the other two lanes or how ever they accommodate the traffic. But it will take some time to reconstruct that section since it would appear that they have to go right down to the base and start over again, build it up and then replace the cement. So that is an example of a long-term project, very expensive, but only one of the 50. Mind you, it is undoubtedly the most expensive of the 50. So, let us put it this way, it is in a range between $7 million and $12 million, give or take.

Mr. Jennissen: So, actually, Mr. Tinkler's estimate was not that far off when he first had to make an estimate on that. Now, how much of that is cost shared with the feds, again?

Mr. Findlay: Well, certainly it would be our intention to apply for all of it as flood-related expenses where the 90-10 formula would be used, and we would be compensated 90 percent. But I want to caution the member we will be applying, and they will ultimately make some decisions. If they would extend the election for six more months, I think we would probably get our 90 percent consistently. But I have been around before, and I know there will be some argument over some items. We will argue for 90 percent and whether we end up with that remains to be seen.

Mr. Jennissen: The cynical view up north where they are saying, after this flood every square inch of the road in southern Manitoba will be paved, but will that money saved go to us up north? We are not sure of that, and, in fact, that is the question I have for the minister. Had any capital monies been targeted to these roads that will presently be fixed, hopefully, with federal aid, and if so, will that money be shunted elsewhere or will we just lose it?

Mr. Findlay: None of the projects that are currently programmed apply to any of these roads that are under this flood impact. What is currently programmed, and what will be tendered this year, will not be changed by the flooding activity. We will continue with our provincial capital program of approximately $100 million without any reference to the flood. The flood will be in addition to that. We will be expecting to, as I said earlier, get the 90 percent reimbursement from the federal government on the cost of rebuilding those particular roads. So the existing program is not affected in southern Manitoba nor in northern Manitoba by the impact of the flood.

* (1530)

Mr. Jennissen: So the minister is saying that no money will be redirected, even though some of that might be federal money that would have normally been paid by the province. Is he suggesting that there is nothing there to redirect?

Mr. Findlay: In terms of the current provincial capital budget, there is not a single federal dollar in it, so none of their dollars can be redirected because they have not got any in the provincial program, if that is what the member was referring to.

Mr. Jennissen: I am sorry, Mr. Chair, I was thinking of the money that you save because some of the roads that are now destroyed, let us say, are not exactly at 100 percent standard are now going to be fixed with federal money; that saves the province a lot of money. Perhaps those roads were going to be fixed in the near future. Is any of that money going to be redirected?

If you save a million bucks in the south because the feds are paying, we could sure use it in the North; that is what I am saying. Is there any chance of any of that being redirected?

Mr. Findlay: In terms of what we are going to do in the south in terms of rebuilding of these roads, we are going to bring them up to the standard that they were. I mean, we would not be there building them, period, if it was not for the flood, so no money is saved by us. We actually have to spend 10 percent, so it actually costs us to do that rebuilding, and it is only up to the previous standard.

That is where maybe some of the argument will come from the federal government, well, it is a newer standard now, they might argue that point. We will argue strenuously we only brought it up to the standard it was before, and particularly where a shoulder has eroded away, say, two feet of a shoulder is gone, you replace the clay, you put the gravel back on, that just brings it up to what it was. If the surface is gone, you resurface it, but it brings it back to what it was, and it will only be sections of roads. Many of these projects are a section of maybe 100 yards long, or maybe a quarter-mile long and maybe even two miles long in certain cases.

It is sections of roads. We are not rebuilding whole roads to any new standard, just bringing them up to the standard they were prior to the flood. So there really is not any saving for us; there is really a cost of 10 percent to us, 10 percent or whatever part of the 90 percent we lose in the argument.

Mr. Jennissen: If I could just ask a few more questions of the minister basically on railroads and then allow my colleague from The Maples to ask a few questions, as well, before we actually get to the--

An Honourable Member: Allow?

Mr. Jennissen: Let me rephrase that. I would be honoured to have the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) to ask questions on the roads.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): On a point of order, I notice both the minister and the official critic are wise and gray-haired gentlemen. Am I still eligible to ask questions around this table? I do not have any gray hair yet. Does that allow me to?

Mr. Findlay: If he asks enough questions, I will gray it for him.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for The Maples does not have a point of order.

Mr. Jennissen: Mr. Chair, my apologies again to the member for The Maples. If he does not have gray hair now, just stick with the Liberal Party; he will have.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. We are talking about the Estimates of the Department of Highways and Transportation, and I would like to ask all members of the committee--[interjection] That is only when the committee puts me to sleep.

Mr. Jennissen: Mr. Chair, my apologies for the levity that descends upon us after hours of this.

Could the minister tell me, when was the last time he met with any representative from CN, CP or VIA, because I am concerned a little bit about the future of railroading in this province?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, we would have talked to CN and CP at the end of April of this year.

Mr. Jennissen: Does the minister get a feeling of what the prospects are in the future for rail jobs? I know there have been cuts, but what does it look like in the near future for CN and CP especially, and VIA?

Mr. Findlay: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair to say that everybody in this day and age is under a significant challenge to be sure that their operations attract customers and that their costs do not exceed their incomes. Clearly, both the major railroads have lost some money in recent years and have gone through some major restructuring to get their costs down, and have worked hard to try to maintain their customer base and maintain satisfied customers. Otherwise, they will continue to lose more work to the trucking industry, or maybe more to U.S. rail.

I think the restructuring that both CN and CP have done has put them on a better course for the future than what they have been on in the past. At the kind of meetings I was referring to, there are usually people from every part of the transportation industry, whether it is trucking industry, rail industry, air industry. Provincial and federal governments are there and talking about the challenges that are faced, and significant comparisons are often done to U.S. rail. The member, I am sure, is aware of the tremendous amalgamations in U.S. rail and the whole objective to get their cost per unit of activity lower, lower, lower. It puts a lot of challenge on these like CN and CP.

I think CN and CP are in a much better position today because they are making money which allows them to look forward to the future in terms of capital reinvestment, in terms of purchasing equipment, and actually there are jobs associated with building cars or building engines. I think it is a firm indication that the security of jobs in the industry is much better today than it used to be, but I will not for a moment pretend that things have not changed dramatically in those industries.

The customers that want freight moved have demanded lower costs, greater efficiency, more reliability. The railroads, for a period of time, did not seem to respond very fast to those requirements, but in the last two or three years have responded fairly dramatically.

There is no question that, theoretically, the cost of moving bulk freight by rail is the least cost, should be the least cost way, as opposed to by truck over the long distances we have to haul in Canada or in North America. Technically and theoretically, they have a good future, but they have got to work hard to capitalize on that good future, whether it is hauling coal or grain or potash or piggybacks or passengers as in the case of VIA.

You have to satisfy the customer in terms of quality of service, reliability of service; and, if you do not do that, you lose business, because the customer has choices. Where he can exercise those choices, he may well use them as levers. I think, clearly, the railroads understand that better today than they did five or 10 years ago.

The volumes that we are exporting, the volumes of product that are moving around Canada and North America bode very well for the railway industry and for the trucking industry, too. Either one of the two is going to haul them. In certain cases, yes, the air industry will work with them in an intermodal sense.

The economy is moving along reasonably well. There is more and more trade going on into and out of Manitoba, and a lot of that trade activity is more north-south than it used to be. There are trucking companies and railroads that are doing that business down into the U.S.

So I am reasonably optimistic about their future. I cannot let this opportunity go by without pointing out the change in how they deal with their customers in terms of freight billing, waybilling, customer contact. Those customer service centres for both CN and CP are here in Winnipeg for all of Canada in both cases. This change in how they did business, for various reasons we were able to attract them to Manitoba.

Those are railway jobs in one sense. They are in a different form than the traditional railway job, but they are part of the services they deliver to their customers, and that responsiveness to their customers that they must do is done through those customer service centres.

* (1540)

Mr. Jennissen: Talking about the more traditional railway jobs, especially in Winnipeg itself, is the minister perhaps privy to any information about the future plans of CN for the Transcona Shops, both the car shops and the diesel shop? This affects a lot of people, and people are nervous. They wonder if you have an idea of what is in the offing.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, the member may have been aware that recently GE just signed a contract with CN to do a fair bit of new locomotive work at Symington. Those are examples of the kind of contracts that those yards need to get in the future in order to be sure that their people are actively working, because every piece of equipment that they make today, although it is more costly than it was 20 years ago, is certainly much more reliable and needs less service work. But the service work that has to be done is more technically skilled, a lot of electronic computer activity.

Both CN and CP are private companies and make their decisions for their benefit, and governments do not have the input or the lines of communication that they might have had in the past with a Crown corporation.

In terms of creating a positive business climate here in Manitoba, we tend to attract companies to look at this as a place to do those kinds of contracts, and I am very pleased to see that Symington Yard here in Winnipeg has been successful in obtaining that kind of work. Those are the kinds of activities that they will need to continue to get to continue to use their staff to the maximum of their capability.

Mr. Kowalski: My questions I have are in regard to public safety. I am concerned that Manitoba's highways and roads are safe, and to be safe there are three elements, good roads, good vehicles and good drivers. Good roads result when well-engineered, well-built highways are well-maintained. Good cars, again well-engineered, well-built and well-maintained, are safe vehicles. Good drivers are drivers who are well-trained and obey the rules of the road.

The reason why people obey the rules of the road is because they believe it is in their safety, or they believe that they might get caught by the police and reminded. There has to be a deterrent, and I believe the province has increased the fines for highway infractions lately. That is one element, but regardless of how severe or how high the fine is, if a driver believes there is a good chance that they can disobey the laws and not get caught, the deterrent effect has less value.

In regard to two elements that the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation has advertised in their RoadWise campaign about speed, I know from personal experience that noncompliance with traffic control signals and speeding cause a lot of loss of life on Manitoba's highways and roads.

I know the minister has read and I have read a number of studies that have shown that photo radar and red light cameras--there are a number of studies from all over the world, New Zealand, and we know B.C. has introduced photo radar and has shown that it dramatically decreases speed on the roads that have indicated that they are patrolled by photo radar, and I think every year I have asked a question about what is happening in the Highways department as far as any studies, any initiatives, since last year's Estimates.

Have we gone any closer to any action and any initiative? Have there been any further studies, any further discussions, about introducing red light cameras and photo radar on Manitoba's highways to make them safer?

Mr. Findlay: I thank the member for the question because very definitely we are on the same wavelength in trying to maximize public safety, particularly for the innocent who obey the laws and get impacted by those out there who do not obey the laws appropriately.

We have had several meetings and discussions involving the RCMP, Winnipeg Police, Brandon Police, myself directly and staff on other occasions, looking at exactly the question the member is referring to; how can we do something in government that gives them greater tools at their disposal to be sure that citizens obey the law reasonably and responsibly to maximize safety of citizens in Winnipeg and elsewhere in the province?

Those discussions have been most interesting, and we have highlighted, in addition to what the member has identified as two items--he has talked about red light cameras and photo radar--railway cross-arms as another item that has been in that process of discussion. Coming out of that discussion, there have been some conclusions which ultimately will be announced and the member will be aware.

So we have had very fruitful discussions, back and forth, pro and con, and it is probably premature for me to say anything more than that at this time, but I think there is going to be pretty good support from those entities in terms of what initiatives will take place.

But it is a result of considerable discussion, and both sides appreciate the input from each other, so it has been a good discussion over the course of several months which will lead to activities that will be of benefit to Manitobans.

Mr. Kowalski: I am very happy for that response. It is a long time coming, but sometimes good things are a long time in coming, and the sooner the better. We are coming up to the tourist season, the holiday season, on Manitoba's highways. It is strange, with our winter driving conditions, the number of fatalities that occur during the summer months, July and August, when our holiday weather is out, bright, sunny skies, ideal road conditions. That is when we have our fatal accidents on our highways.

So I hope that if it is at all possible to move it up before we have our peak holiday season, before July and August, that if there is a move in that direction, it be initiated as soon as possible because even if one life is saved by people slowing down, it is well worth it.

The last question I have on this subject is almost redundant, but has the minister received studies from the introduction of photo radar in B.C.? Has there been any communication with the Department of Highways in B.C. as to the success of their photo radar program, and what, if anything, could we learn from the way they initiated phone radar?

I know one of the things they did for the trial period was that for a month they just stopped vehicles, and they did not give out tickets. They gave out warning tickets that after this month, you would have received a ticket for this amount. They were to sent in the mail, and then people learned about photo radar. Are there any other things that could be learned from the way it was introduced in B.C.?

Mr. Findlay: In the process of the discussions that have taken place, staff certainly had been aware of the information from whatever jurisdiction inside and outside of Canada to look at the pros and cons. Our initiative is simply to improve public safety--that is the bottom line, public safety--and not to generate revenue, as some other people have identified. So our mission is safety.

Mr. Kowalski: I am sure it will be in a made-in-Manitoba solution, to quote another minister, so thank you very much.

Mr. Jennissen: Mr. Chair, if I could actually move to the blue Estimates booklet, I know we have been patiently waiting. I would like to ask a few questions, actually, about the Organizational Chart, if I may.

One thing that I certainly have some questions about, but I would like to ask them a little bit later on when we get to the regular pages, is on the amalgamation of the Motor Transport and Highway Traffic Boards. I certainly have some concerns about that amalgamation, but we will do that when we get to the appropriate page.

On the left-hand side under Administrative Services, P. Rochon, Human Resource Services, is that just a name change from last year when it was called Personnel Services?

Mr. Findlay: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

* (1550)

Mr. Jennissen: And the bottom of that same Organizational Chart under Administrative Services, Claims Investigations, which was not listed last year under that heading, was that a major change?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, a position moved from Construction and Maintenance over to Administrative Services.

Mr. Jennissen: Under Policy, Planning and Development with Mr. Norquay, Corporate Services last year was called Corporate and Legislative Services. Does that omission of the word "Legislative" mean something?

Mr. Findlay: No, Mr. Chairman, it is just streamlining the name.

Mr. Jennissen: Under Driver and Vehicle Licencing and Transportation Safety and Regulatory Services, both of the boxes under those vertical lines deal with Transport Safety and Regulation. I do not understand that. Why do we have that listed twice?

Mr. Findlay: Under the column on Driver and Vehicle Licensing, the first box on Safety is dealing just with drivers. The bottom box, Transport Safety and Regulation, deals with vehicle safety, the PVIP program, the commercial vehicle program, and then over on the right hand under Transportation Safety and Regulatory Services, Transport Safety and Regulation refers to the National Safety Code, which is a national undertaking of many contexts to promote safety in some uniform fashion across the country.

So there are different activities. The names may be the same, but they are different activities under each of the three.

Mr. Jennissen: If it is appropriate with Mr. Chair, I would like to continue with line by line on Estimates.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 15.1(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $438,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $89,000--pass.

15.1.(c) Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $387,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $268,100--pass.

15.1.(d) Financial Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $655,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $207,800--pass.

15.1.(e) Human Resource Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $735,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $203,400--pass.

15.1.(f) Computer Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,511,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $573,300--pass.

15.1.(g) Occupational Health and Safety (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $173,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $60,400--pass.

Item 15.2. Highways and Transportation Programs (a) Management Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $362,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $37,000--pass.

15.2.(b) Operations and Contracts (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,420,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $493,400--pass.

15.2.(c) Bridges and Structures (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,793,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $295,100--pass.

15.2.(d) Transportation Safety and Regulatory Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,433,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $634,700--pass.

15.2.(e) Regional Offices (1) Eastern Region Office (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,177,300--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $535,500--pass.

15.2.(e)(2) South Central Region Office (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,058,300--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $574,000--pass.

15.2.(e)(3) South Western Region Office (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,893,800--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $476,000--pass.

15.2.(e)(4) West Central Region Office (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,512,300--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $390,200--pass.

15.2.(e)(5) Northern Region Office (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,194,200--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $403,300--pass.

15.2.(f) Winter Roads $2,000,000--pass.

15.2.(g) Other Jurisdictions (1) Gross Expenditures $2,440,000--pass; (2) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($1,000,000)--pass.

15.2.(h) Planning and Design (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,643,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $432,400--pass.

15.2.(j) Northern Airports and Marine Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $3,038,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $2,344,500--pass.

15.2.(k) Materials and Research (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits 1,556,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $450,500--pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($1,009,200)--pass.

15.2.(m) Traffic Engineering (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $806,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $233,300--pass.

15.2.(n) Policy, Planning and Development (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,676,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $501,000--pass

15.2.(p) Driver and Vehicle Licensing (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $10,805,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures 7,766,00--pass; (3) Manitoba Public Insurance Cost-Sharing Agreement $3,763,800--pass.

15.2.(q) Boards and Committees (1) Motor Transport and Highway Traffic Boards.

Mr. Jennissen: I notice that those used to be two separate committees, and I guess in a sense they still are, the Motor Transport Board and the Highway Traffic Board, and through Order-in-Council, and I have them, they have been reduced from 16 people to seven people. Is that correct?

Mr. Findlay: Right.

* (1600)

Mr. Jennissen: Could the minister explain why those changes were necessary and if there is any conflict between those two boards? Are the same people sitting on two boards?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, in the interest of making sure we are as efficient as we can be and decrease our costs, we looked at the activities that were happening in those two boards, and clearly the Motor Transport Board activities were declining because of less regulation in the industry, more deregulation occurring, and decided it was appropriate to have one committee to carry out the functions of both Motor Transport and Highway Traffic.

In the process, we have reduced the number of appointed members from 16 to seven and have reduced the cost to government to carry out these functions by $50,000 per year, so considerable cost saving in doing this. No, I do not see a conflict of interest in terms of the two activities being done by the same board members.

Mr. Jennissen: Because I am not very familiar with either of the boards, can you give me an indication how often these people actually meet in a year?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, it would appear there would be around 40, 45 meetings were held in 1996, and many of those meetings would be hearings which require only three members to sit in on the hearing.

Mr. Jennissen: So, under Board Members, that $120,000 a year, that would mean $3,000 a meeting. Am I correct then that Salaries and Employee Benefits, Administrative Support and Other Board Members, Estimates of Expenditures--[interjection] I am simply taking that figure and dividing it by the estimated number of meetings. Is that what it would cost a meeting? Is it fair to characterize it that way?

Mr. Findlay: Well, I reacted to the member's $3,000 per meeting, because if you look back, it is $120,700 in the year '96-97, and as I have already identified, we saved $50,000, so the figure here should really be $50,000 less.

The $50,000 shows up in the total of the sum appropriation, but most of the savings of that $50,000 is in that line right there, so there will not be $120,000 spent this year on board members. That is where the $50,000 saving by reducing from 16 to seven from last year to this year happens.

Mr. Jennissen: What exactly constitutes a meeting? For example, if Mr. Penner shares both meetings that he picks up the phone and phones another member, does that constitute a meeting?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, no, a phone call would not constitute a meeting. They meet Tuesday mornings and the hearings are scheduled by staff that they deal with these hearings that are requested by citizens under various activities associated with the Highway Traffic Board.

Mr. Jennissen: The downsizing or slimming down of that group from 17 to seven had everything to do with efficiency and not in punishing or rewarding anybody in particular?

Mr. Findlay: No. It had everything to do with increasing efficiency and decreasing cost. It had nothing to do with punishing anybody, no.

Mr. Jennissen: I am not aware of what the fees are for volunteer board members who I am sure will work very hard, but I did notice that if the chairperson is involved the whole day--that is $336 a day or $191 a meeting and $109 per meeting for the other members or $192 per day, which is not an insignificant amount but I am sure these are qualified people.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, across government for appointed positions, there is a schedule of what they are paid based on the level of activity they are involved in, the degree of expertise they need to have in order to serve in those positions, and that is where those per diems or half-day-meeting rates are set, but it is consistent across government based on the nature of the appointment as to what you get paid on a per diem basis.

Mr. Jennissen: The projected savings of $50,000, as the minister said, should have perhaps come out of that $120,000. Does that mean then that under Other Expenditures, under Supplies and Services, which is down $30,000 and Other that is down $30,000, are those the savings we were talking about?

Mr. Findlay: The actual savings are shared, from where I talked about it earlier between board members and other operating expenditures, but the bottom line is the $50,000 saving is primarily because less members paid less money for being a member of the board and less expenses naturally with less people.

Mr. Jennissen: So that fairly vague line that says Other which is down from $57.7 to $27.7, a saving a $30,000, what would that consist of?

Mr. Findlay: At the end of the day, the majority of it will be in the expenses. The per diems are less now than they were in the previous years. Less people, less expenses, less per diems. I would not say we are not exactly on those numbers, those are approximate numbers. I would prefer if the member looks up the total of the sum appropriation. That $50,000 will be saved, but primarily it should be showed as board member, less cost, because that is really where the majority of savings are going to happen.

* (1610)

Mr. Jennissen: I was also looking at the line called Accommodation which has not changed under Other Expenditures from $46,000. It remains at $46,000. Now perhaps I am wrong, but if you are down from 17 members to whatever, 16 to seven, I do not understand why Accommodation would not change. You are dealing with less bodies.

Mr. Findlay: This is not a precise science. These are only projections. Come back a year from now and we will see more exactly what they turn out to be but you are right, less people, there will be less accommodation expenditures. Mr. Chairman, this accommodation is actually rental space for the offices.

Mr. Jennissen: Are there any guidelines on how these people are hired? Is it their ability, their qualifications?

Mr. Findlay: We look at people that we deem have had enough experience, that they are qualified to carry out the functions of the board. We look for some distribution across the province, the city, rural, North, so we have people that can understand the points of view of the people that come before them on hearings in the different regions.

Also, if you want, there is a hearing happening in Thompson or Brandon that you would prefer to have members closer to that area as opposed to having the high costs of transporting them in, so there are a variety of factors. Over the course of time, you make some changes to be sure that you continue to strengthen the capability of your board members.

Mr. Jennissen: And the minister remains convinced that reducing this to seven members is actually a productive move? Like, sometimes, you know, more heads are better than fewer heads.

Mr. Findlay: We spent some time considering how to handle this and, in the end, I believe that the decision made to reduce it to seven is the right thing to do.

Mr. Jennissen: Do these seven members reflect geographical disparity somewhat, or are they all Winnipeg people?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, they are not all Winnipeg. In fact, I look down the list, only one is from Winnipeg. They come from Steinbach, Headingley, Dugald, Somerset, Thompson, Garson. That is six, and the seventh one is from Winnipeg. So they are from all over Manitoba. The North is represented, rural Manitoba is represented, and the city.

Mr. Jennissen: Can the minister identify the northern member from Thompson? I do not know who that is.

Mr. Findlay: Mrs. Helen McIvor.

Mr. Jennissen: Mr. Chair, I think we will continue line by line.

Mr. Chairperson: 15.2. Highways and Transportation Programs (q) Boards and Committees (1) Motor Transport and Highway Traffic Boards (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $436,800--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $137,900--pass; (2) License Suspension Appeal Board and Medical Review Committee (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $221,000--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $96,600--pass; (3) Taxicab Board (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Jennissen: I just have one question of the minister, and that is some concern I have personally because, in all honesty, I do not know the whole issue here, but I do have some taxicab drivers who work for a large taxicab company in the city, and the issue, and I talk to every cabbie I meet about this issue, is owning the licence and owning the cab.

There is at least one case where the licence is not in--although the cabbie owns the cab, I guess, he does not own the licence. I know this is a contentious issue with pros and cons on both sides, I do not claim to be an expert, but I would like the minister's point of view on this.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, this issue with regard to the company that the member is referring to has been ongoing for a long period of time. They have had a process of how they have operated, which in balance for the vast majority is functioning. They continue to deal with the board as to how that issue will evolve over the course of time, and I am prepared to allow the board in its wisdom to do the analysis to strike the appropriate balance between owning the cab and owning the licence involving that company where those drivers are shareholders in the company.

It has been a ticklish issue. It has been floating around for a long time, and no matter what is on paper, there is always one or two that see it another way, but when 98 or 99 percent see it in favour of the way it is, that is a pretty strong majority. I think we have to go with what the taxicab industry is able to work out with the board.

Mr. Chairperson: 15.2.(3) Taxicab Board (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $302,400--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $96,900--pass.

Resolution 15.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $57,425,300 for Highways and Transportation, Highways and Transportation Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

15.3. Infrastructure Works (a) Maintenance Program $54,416,800--pass.

15.3.(b) Mechanical Equipment Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $7,212,900--pass (2) Other Expenditures $15,436,800--pass; (3) Less Recoverable from other appropriations ($22,649,700)--pass.

15.3.(c) Construction and Upgrading of Provincial Trunk Highways, Provincial Roads and Related Projects, Provincial Programming (including Manitoba's share of the Strategic Highway Improvement Program) $97,900--pass; Canada's share of Strategic Highway Improvement Program, no cost.

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

15.3.(e) Work in Municipalities, Local Government Districts and Unorganized Territory $3,660,000--pass.

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

15.3.(g) Other Projects $3,300,000--pass.

Resolution 15.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $160,976,800 for Infrastructure Works for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

The last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Highways is 15.1.(a) Minister's Salary. At this point, we request the minister's staff to please leave the table for the consideration of this item.

Item 15.1.(a) Minister's Salary $25,700--pass.

Resolution 15.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,329,100 for Highways and Transportation, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

This now concludes the Estimates of the Department of Highways and Transportation.

The next set of Estimates to be considered for this section of the Committee of Supply is the Legislative Assembly. Will the committee agree to a short recess, and we will reconvene?

* (1620)

Mr. Jennissen: Before we do that, Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the minister for his clear and forthright answers. I do appreciate that. I also want to thank my colleagues for their input and participation, and, particularly, I want to thank the minister's very capable staff for their patience in being with us over the number of days and weeks, I guess, almost.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable member for Flin Flon for those comments.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the staff for the work they do to prepare for these Estimates. It is as hard on them as it is on anybody because they never know quite what is going to come up.

I also want to thank the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) and the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) for the nature in which we held the discussion. It was not acrimonious, and we did not worry about line by line until the very end.

We had a good discussion on a lot of issues, and, hopefully, they are helpful to the members. My door is always open to carry on those kinds of discussions on a less formal basis if they so desire. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister for those comments. The committee will now take a recess at the direction of the government House leader.

The committee recessed at 4:22 p.m.

The committee resumed at 4:33 p.m.