Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be dealing with the consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Highways.
Does the honourable minister have an opening statement?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to present the '98-99 Expenditure Estimates for the Department of Highways and Transportation.
Reflected in today's Estimates are programs of policies that recognize the integral role of the provincial transportation infrastructure in the development of Manitoba's economy. As well, these Estimates demonstrate my department's continued commitment to the vision of safe, efficient and environmentally compatible transportation infrastructure. The '98-99 Expenditure Estimates totalling $231.5 million represent an increase of over $6.6 million over the '97-98 Adjusted Vote.
The department is reducing a total of eight full-time equivalents but will not experience any layoffs from this reduction. These Estimates that I present today provide a highways construction budget of $105.1 million. This represents an increase of $7.1 million over '97-98. The Estimates provide $58.2 million for the maintenance program. This is a $3.2-million increase over last year's budget. The maintenance budget is facing additional pressures this year from the aftereffects of the '97 flood. We are also dealing with spring breakup that has been quite serious this year for many of Manitoba's roads. We are experiencing three times the normal spring damage on both our gravel and permanent surfaces. Manitoba Highways and Transportation serves a network of 18,500 kilometres of highways and roads and 2,800 bridges and structures throughout the province.
* (1500)
Some of the major construction projects this year are many and varied. I have a list here, but I do not think I will not take the time to go through them. We will probably touch on them as we go through the various questions that members opposite ask.
The province is divided into five regions of different size and different populations. As significant as these projects are, their completion does not go far in reducing the amount of work needed in the highway infrastructure. That backlog, or the request list as I often refer to it, that the department has on file is built day to day and month to month, and over the course of the last few years totals at this point in time $1.4 billion plus, for which we have approximately $100 million a year to service it. I can tell the members opposite, and I am sure they have heard me talk about this before, but when I came into this office almost five years ago that request list was $600 million. It is now $1.4 billion.
Each year maintaining the road infrastructure becomes more challenging as economic growth leads to increased traffic on our highways. On the one hand, we encourage and promote industry development and expansion. On the other hand, we realize that our aging transportation systems cannot keep pace with this expansion, and I am absolutely confident that every minister in every province and the two territories has the same problem.
While our roads, railways and airlines will all play a part in meeting with the challenges of economic growth, the most pressing need is with the highways across this country. Over the past 10 years, provincial roads have experienced a 15 percent increase in traffic use. Vehicle registrations over that same 10-year period have increased over 10 percent. Rail line abandonments, grain elevator closures and consolidations, and the elimination of the WGTA, have resulted in a shift from rail transport to road in an ever-increasing pattern forcing the use of larger and heavier trucks over increased distances. There is no way I see that changing for the next few years ahead. This increased use of our road system has led to greater maintenance and rehabilitation requirements. As well, we face increasing demands for highway upgrading to nationally harmonized loading standards, increased traffic volumes and improved road geometries, in order to accommodate the heavier truck traffic and to ensure highway efficiency and safety is maintained for both commercial and passenger vehicles.
By working together with the municipal governments and other government departments to establish our priorities, we are striving to meet these challenges. We also continue to work with the provincial and territorial governments across Canada to urge the federal government to make appropriate funding arrangements for a quality interprovincial trans-Canada highway system. Quite simply, a cost-effective program is critical in order to meet the infrastructure needs of our national highway system, thereby supporting Canada's economic growth and tourism.
Over the past five years, Manitoba's expenditures on highways and road-related activities has exceeded provincial revenue collected in road-use fuel taxes. From the period '92-93 to '96-97, a four-year period, Manitoba collected, on average, road-related fuel taxes of $189.2 million and expended an average of approximately $200 million a year on our road infrastructure programs that we have been talking about. While some provinces cut road spending during this time period, it is significant that Manitoba maintained its capital budget at around the $100-million mark. This, plus the $7.1-million increase for the road construction program in '98-99, attests to the government's commitment to highway rehabilitation as well as a clear understanding of the importance of its role in economic development.
By contrast, from '92-96, the federal government collected an average of $129.1 million from fuel excise taxes collected in Manitoba while their annual contribution to our provincial road network has been averaging $7.0 million, representing an average return of some 5.4 percent. I can take those numbers even further and say from that '92-93 fiscal year to this fiscal year, which really covers six years, the total contribution has not increased at all and the last two years have been zero. So their amount per year is even less than the 5.4 percent over the six-year period.
While the government acknowledges the immense benefits of a safe and efficient national highway network to the nation's economy, it questions the affordability of a cost-shared national highway program within the existing financial framework. However, in the '95 federal budget the excise tax on road use gasoline was increased by 1.5 cents a litre as a federal deficit-reduction measure, specifically announced for that purpose. This increased federal revenue, about $500 million annually across Canada, bringing its total road related fuel tax excise taxes to approximately $4 billion per year.
Now that the federal deficit reduction targets are expected to be met, it is appropriate that the revenue from this highway-use related tax, the one and a half cent a litre or $500 million per year be reinvested in the highway infrastructure. This amount added to the current average federal spending of $300 million for road and bridge improvements across the country would put on the table approximately $800 million that the federal government could be contributing to the national highway system. This is what we have been arguing consistently for them to do. This is certainly a good start, even though it is still less than 20 percent of the tax money they collect from the road system. All provinces are onside with promoting this concept. Some may have different points of view at how it might work, but everybody is onside that federal contributions are essential.
Manitoba will continue to press the federal government to provide a national highway program for the citizens of this country. In the meantime, we will not sit idle. We are vigorously seeking alternative ways to alleviate funding shortfalls and road deterioration. Manitoba is participating on a federal-provincial territorial committee to examine the feasibility of public-private partnerships with a particular emphasis on the national highway system. In this context, we have advised the federal government that Manitoba opposes the imposition of highway-user tolls on any of our existing highways, including those that are part of the national highway system.
* (1510)
The department is developing options for a long-range transportation planning process to ensure that Manitobans achieve appropriate value for money for the expenditure on highways. A long-term plan would facilitate better decision making and ensure that transportation investments provide net benefits to users and yield productivity gains for the economy. The stakeholders will play a large role in our plans. As an example, my officials have been working with Keystone Agricultural Producers and the Union of Manitoba Municipalities toward the development of a Manitoba transportation strategy. I recently received a proposal from KAP and UMM on the organizational structure and process for the development of such a strategy. The department has taken steps to improve its project assessment process to better ensure that the government optimally invests its limited resources. It has developed a decision-making process to prioritize projects that are based on engineering, social and economic analysis so that the highway construction investments are optimized.
Although my staff were not occupied with flood fighting this year as they were in '97, the weather did give us a cause for concern nonetheless. I know our early dry spring was a welcome relief to most of us; however, it created hardships for many of our northern communities. The shorter winter and warmer temperatures forced early closure of the major southern portion of the winter road system. The winter road system comprises approximately of 1,600 kilometres of roadways in northern and eastern Manitoba. It provides for low-cost transportation of bulk goods to landlocked northern remote communities during an eight-week period each winter. I guess, we will say, eight week ideally; not this last year.
Since these roads are important, supply lines from many northern communities, other arrangements had to be made quickly for the communities when the roads deteriorated prematurely. Particularly affected were communities of Bloodvein, Berens River, Poplar River, Little Grand Rapids, Pauingassi, St. Theresa Point, Wasagamack, Garden Hill, Red Sucker Lake, Tadoule Lake, Brochet and Lac Brochet. Manitoba Highways and Transportation, with input from community leaders and the federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, co-ordinated activities using a combination of available ground transportation and airlifts to ensure that these isolated communities received essential supplies efficiently and cost effectively.
We certainly were grateful for the northern airport system during this situation and made sure that those airports were safe for all travellers, whether for emergencies or business or leisure travel. We are anticipating the report of the working group which was set up last winter. Following a tragic aircraft accident at the Little Grand Rapids airport, in response to First Nations concerns for northern air safety, on December of '97, I asked department officials to establish a provincial airports working group. The group consists of representatives from a number of First Nations aircraft operators that serve the North, the federal government and our own Northern Affairs department. The working group is charged with documenting safety-related issues, prioritizing possible improvements, identifying possible opportunities to fund such improvements. I am expecting the working group to report midsummer.
In any event, I can assure you that the safety of our transportation network is of the utmost importance to us and that we will maximize our limitation of safety-related requirements in northern airports through joint federal-provincial cost-sharing.
Still on the subject of northern travel, I wish to note that Manitoba has funding budgeted this year for the environmental assessment survey and design activities associated with Wasagamack airport and access road. This will serve the communities of Wasagamack and St. Theresa Point. The cost estimate of the project has now been amended to some $17 million for the complete project, up from the original $12 million that was forecast. The federal share remains at 70 percent and the provincial share at 30 percent in an agreement that has been signed. Once we confirm this year's contribution, the department is planning to implement the environmental assessment work this fiscal year in order to acquire the environmental licence. Given the complexity and size of this project, it is estimated that it will take two years of engineering work and three years of actual construction work.
The Estimates I present today introduce Manitoba's Airport Capital Assistance Program for southern airports. While capital improvements for our small northern airports are fully funded by the province, no provincial capital support program existed for our southern airstrips of which there are 30 plus, I guess. We developed the new Manitoba Airport Capital Assistance Program following a series of public meetings held several months ago with municipal officials, airport operators and user groups. This program works as a partnership between government and the communities. The airport owners will provide 50 percent of the cost of eligible capital projects, and the province will provide the other 50 percent for a project costing more than $5,000. This is a mirror image of the grant-in-aid program that we currently have underway with communities. The government's share of the funding of this program will total $300,000 annually.
This program will help cover the cost of selected improvements at the 30 smaller southern airports that have public access and which are no longer eligible for any federal assistance. Priority one projects are those airports which include runway, taxiway and apron rehabilitation and improvements. Priority two projects include lighting for runways, taxiways, windsocks, navigational aids, fuel storage and containment systems and utilities to serve eligible items. Priority three projects include air terminal building improvements, safety-related airport operating or maintenance equipment, parking facilities, fencing and tree removal.
I want to point out that this program was chosen because many smaller Manitoba airports make a substantial contribution to the economic and social well-being of the areas they serve. They are also important to the health care needs for those communities by providing access for air ambulances when service is required. Our funding partnership will help to make these valuable assets remain more viable.
Moving now from infrastructure to the people who use it, I would like to speak briefly about our drinking and driving legislation. In the past, Manitoba has delivered a strong and consistent message against drinking and driving and helped improve road safety. Last year we strengthened our stand even further by proclaiming legislation that cracks down on drivers who drink and drive with blood alcohol concentrations of .05 or over.
Other associated amendments proclaimed in September of '97 include increasing vehicle impoundments for driving while suspended two or more times in two years to 90 days up from 60 days in the previous legislation. Impoundment and appeal fees also increased last September. On April 1, '98, the following additional countermeasures came into effect: increased roadside suspension periods for persons who fail a roadside screening device or refuse to provide a breath sample to a standard 24-hour period. Mandatory alcohol assessments for all drivers who accumulate two or more .05 blood alcohol suspensions within a three-year period, and monetary penalties for reinstating a drivers licence after the 24-hour licence suspension for a .05 offence. The legislation complements existing drinking and driving laws including the three-month roadside administrative suspensions.
In November '97, the department introduced a stolen or wrecked vehicle monitoring program in support of a national effort aimed at enhancing motor vehicle safety and consumer protection. The goal of the program is to control the risk to public safety and consumer protection by preventing the concealment of stolen or nonreparable vehicles. The program also serves to prevent any written-off but salvageable vehicles from being reregistered until body integrity and mechanical safety checks are completed and certification is obtained.
Besides Manitoba, the provinces of Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and B.C. have fully implemented the national program. All other jurisdictions are expected to implement the program over the coming months.
The Driver and Vehicle Licencing Division has completed modifications to its driver licensing system to handle the year 2000 problem. Without the successful completion of this project, the division's business operations would have been severely disrupted, causing negative impacts on law enforcement and customer service. The remaining DDVL computer systems will be year 2000 compatible by September 30 of 1998.
On September 1, 1997, during Farm Safety Week, Manitoba Highways and Transportation and Manitoba Agriculture launched a new Agricultural Equipment Lighting and Marking program. This initiative was developed in response to an increase in traffic accidents involving inadequately lit and marked farm vehicles on our highway system. However, to give farmers sufficient time to comply with the new regulations, strict enforcement will not take place until the beginning of July '98.
From all reports, farm communities, law enforcement officials and other road users have welcomed the changes as significant steps toward improving the safety of Manitoba's highways. The new regulation is explained in an illustrative lay language guidebook called Be Seen, Be Safe. The guidebook has been distributed throughout the Manitoba farm community. We have been providing copies in response to requests from across Canada and the United States and even from Australia and Japan, and 28,000 copies have been printed and 10,000 or more are still on order.
Other Canadian jurisdictions are following our lead by using the Manitoba guidebook and developing their own safety initiatives for farm equipment lighting. Last December, the Highways and Transportation Internet website for road conditions was open for business. Manitobans were able to find out the latest information about our winter highway driving conditions by visiting our Internet website. This summer, the reports will also let visitors to the website know where roads are affected by construction activity. As a further upgrade to this service, we are planning to include information about our department's role and responsibilities. There will also be hyperlinks to road information reports from Saskatchewan, Ontario, North Dakota and Minnesota. We will be including an on-line map of Manitoba highways.
On the economic development side of the department, last December a three-year strategy to promote multimodal trade and a transportation corridor extending south to Mexico was announced. This would be accomplished with assistance of $600,000 from the Winnipeg Development Agreement. This strategy will promote PTH 75, I-29, I-35 link beginning in Manitoba and extending to Mexico and hooking up with I believe they are called Highways 85 and 87 in Mexico as the North American Superhighway. It will also guide the development of multimodal transportation routes known as corridors to help Manitoba's and Winnipeg's current and future trade requirements and investments with the NAFTA countries.
Development of the strategy will address trade, transportation, tourism, legislative, regulatory, technological and investment issues. The designation of this route as the primary surface transportation link between the three countries could have a substantial and long-term positive impact on the economy of not only Winnipeg but all of Manitoba. The promotion of this multimodal link will increase opportunities for further growth in sectors such as freight transportation, manufacturing and food processing. Clearly, we do promote a north-south corridor extending extensively from Churchill all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.
The movement of grain is a significant transportation issue for Manitoba. The province supports grain logistics, improvement initiatives and increased returns to producers while recognizing need for appropriate return to all other stakeholders in the system. The federal Minister of Transport recently appointed Justice William Estey to conduct a comprehensive review of the grain handling and transportation system in Canada, including institutional, legislative, regulatory, physical and operational issues.
* (1520)
In support of this review, the western ministers are agreed to hire a logistics specialist to undertake a supply chain analysis of the grain handling and transportation system. The objective of this analysis will be to produce a blueprint for a more efficient and effective system, highlighting those system components where significant improvements could be made. The results will be provided to Mr. Estey for his consideration in developing his final recommendations.
An important milestone occurred in the Winnport initiative in February of this year. Transport Canada announced that Kelowna Flightcraft International Air Cargo was the successful applicant for designation to provide scheduled all-cargo services to China. Funding is in place for Winnipeg to development agreement cost-sharing the start-up of scheduled international all-cargo services with the private sector. Winnport is currently raising the private sector equity funding to support the start-up. Winnport's expected start-up is September of 1998. Departmental staff have been deployed to Winnport to assist in their service development and regulatory issues during the start-up of operations.
Mr. Chairman, we are maintaining and enhancing Manitoba's transportation infrastructure to meet the needs of the transportation industry and the public as a whole. We are developing programs, regulations of policy to further the safety of Manitoba's roads and drivers and enhance the competitiveness of the Manitoba industry.
Ours is a prudent and responsible course of action that will support the viability of Manitoba's transportation network in the years to come. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to comments and discussion with members opposite.
Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister for his opening statement. Does the critic for the official opposition party have an opening statement? The honourable member for Flin Flon.
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do wish to put a few words on record. I will try to be fairly brief.
I listened with attention to what the minister had to say and I realize it looks good, but often when we discuss these things in a general sense, it tends to be a lot of rhetoric. We are only too acutely aware of the fiscal imitations that bind us and so on, and we hear a lot of talk lately, especially about infrastructure deficit, and that is in a general, theoretical sense, people talking about it.
I am in particular talking about our national infrastructure policy and sustained commitment by the Infrastructure Council of Manitoba Inc., which has put out a very good report that I read with great interest. But we do not really need those detailed analyses, because we are only too much aware of infrastructure deficit. At least, I am when I drive Highway 6 north or 10 or 39 or Highway 60, east of the road, because certainly this spring we were greeted, many of us, that is, the motorists were greeted by surface breaks and frost boils, the worse that I had ever seen them. It made life difficult for those of us travelling. It seemed to us that our road system was just being battered a little bit more each year, and this certainly was a particularly bad spring. I do not know if that had any connection to El Nino or the weather or whatever, but certainly it is worse than I have ever seen it. However, also in defence of our people that fix roads, I think they did a marvellous job patching. I know now that when I drive north, I do not have to slow down to 50 kilometres an hour for some of those stretches where there were up to 200 to 300 metres of frost boils and surface breaks and so on. The staff that fix that need to be commended because they did this extremely fast, and they did it very well.
However, I think there is an underlying problem. I think our system is aging and it needs to be updated. Overall, we know that with the lifting of the Crow rate that there are serious impacts on railroads. That in conjunction with elevator companies centralizing, that in conjunction with rail line abandonment, going for bigger and bigger elevators but also more efficient and larger, streamlined, but less rail lines, it creates problems for all of us concerned about poor passenger service in the railroad, in the rail lines. It is a sharp contrast up North to anything I experienced in Europe or even in eastern Canada or even in the south, specifically to try to take a Via train from, let us say, Cranberry Portage to Pukatawagan. It is routine for these trains to be 12 hours late. I just do not think that is acceptable. Certainly in Europe that would never be accepted.
I know this is not directly within the province's jurisdiction, but I am saying in terms of our general feeling on transportation, it certainly irks us to see passenger rail really down on the list of North America. I guess, I am concerned that we seem to have to fight as we did a while ago, the province was involved in this fight as well, to even save our parts of a rail line, the Sherridon line, the Churchill line. I am happy to note that things seem to be progressing smoothly there. Certainly I am in favour of seeing Churchill as the northern terminus of this trade corridor stretching all the way to the Gulf of Mexico, but we all talk about it and all talk about increase in tourism and in trade, but sometimes for northern Manitoba that tends to still be in the talking or planning stage, and we have not really realized too many benefits yet of that talk. It has not been concretized in any way.
I am also concerned about what the fallout would be, or the implications will be, for the Kyoto Accord that Canada signed, because we are trying to limit greenhouse gas emissions and I imagine that would involve emissions from motor vehicles. You know, I do not know what the impact will be because on the one hand we are getting bigger and better and more vehicles on the road and on the other hand we are saying, oh, yes, we have no difficulty, or will have minimal difficulty, meeting these targets. I do not know if anybody has talked to Ralph Klein and the oil industry lately, but I have some concerns whether we are maybe talking one thing and doing another.
Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
As well, on a more general sense, I am concerned about airport safety, as I know the minister is. He has already mentioned some tragic accidents, I believe a total of seven, if I am correct, a total of seven lives lost in about four and a half months. Little Grand Rapids, Wasagamack, and I believe there were two other fatalities as well. That is certainly scary, and the shape of some of our airports also lends credence to the belief, you know, that we are just waiting for a major disaster to happen. Some smaller ones have already happened although I guess any disaster is a disaster, even if it is small.
There is a further concern I have and that is the taxicab industry, not in the province as much as in the city. There is quite a concern, at least by the larger taxicab companies, with regard to the superior line of cab service--I am talking about Blueline--the licences being converted to regular licences because certainly those people in the cab business feel that the competition has been offered an unfair advantage or, if you like, it can be also viewed as sort of sneaking in deregulation via the backdoor. I certainly would like to talk about that at some point as well with the minister.
However, all is not doom and gloom. I know Winnport is a positive. I was very happy to see the other day this huge plane coming in carrying I believe it was insecticides or whatever, or pesticides, from I believe Australia. So that seemed to be an omen of good things to come.
Also happy to notice National Transportation Week, you know, that Barry Prentice had pointed out that Manitoba has the potential to become a leader in the field of transportation education. That is good to see. That suggests some very positive things.
Nonetheless, overall I still feel a contradiction exists of we are trying to have our cake and eat it too. We are trying to spend a minimal amount of money to fix the aging infrastructure in terms of roads, highways, airports, at the same time saying, let us increase the volume. As the minister has admitted, a tremendous increase in traffic on the roads over the last 10 years. We are talking about bigger and better vehicles, trucks, larger trucks, more axels, or whatever. That has to put a lot more strain on the system, apart from the fact that we will be burning a lot more fossil fuels.
So on the one hand we are saying, yes, we can agree to implement the Kyoto Accord. We can do those kinds of things. We can be aware of the environment. We can be aware of working against greenhouse gas effects, trying to limit them, but on the other hand, we keep expanding our transportation links or networks that are aging, to put it gently. Without a massive infusion of capital, I think they are going to be just driven into the dust.
I certainly share the minister's concern about the stance of the federal government, which seems to basically be not only to deregulate and walk away from it but saying, you know, we have nothing to do with this or very minimally. Certainly a national highways system supporting that fully and putting a lot more money, that would be a step in the right direction, although I suppose that would only affect about three of our major roads, 16 and I believe No. 1 and 75. Nonetheless, it would be a step in the right direction.
* (1530)
I do not understand how the federal government can take that attitude when we know that transportation is critical. If you are living in this economically competitive environment, certainly you would think they would put high emphasis on making sure that our transportation systems and our links are of the highest quality. That is definitely the direction the Europeans are going, but that does not appear to be the direction that the federal government is going. Now, I do have some sympathy, and I am sure the minister does as well, with their fiscal plight which they use for every opportunity. Nonetheless, it does leave us in the quandary about--we need to fix the system; we do not seem to have the money to do that. I think that particular untenable position has to be resolved sooner or later.
I note Saskatchewan, for example, is at least threatening, and I presume they will carry this out, to put a lot more money into a highways system. We are talking billions of dollars in X number of years. Now, whether they let their system run down too much, that seems to be the general consensus, when they were in a very precarious position fiscally for a number of years and felt that they could let it ride for a number of years, and they did, but now they are paying the ultimate penalty. I think, of course, we are going to be facing the same kind of scenario because, as the minister pointed out, only a few years ago we needed to do $600 million worth of upgrading or repairs or sinking money into the system, now that is up to, what, $1.4 billion, and you know, five years down the road that is going to be $3 billion. So when are we going to go the other direction? I guess that is the question I have. I do not see that, and that concerns me.
With those remarks, Mr. Chair, I would conclude.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): We thank the critic for the official opposition for those remarks.
I would remind members of the committee that debate on Minister's Salary, item 1.(a), is deferred until all other items in the Estimates of this department are passed.
At this time we would invite the minister's staff to take their places in the Chamber. Would the minister like to introduce his staff?
Mr. Findlay: I will start with Deputy Minister Andy Horosko, and Paul Rochon, Don Norquay and Barry Tinkler, three ADMs.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): We thank the minister.
15.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $465,300.
Mr. Jennissen: I wonder if the minister would concur with what we have done in previous years, and that is ask fairly general questions and be fairly free ranging for quite a while. I do not know what our time frame is. I think we are a little more constricted this year as compared to previous years. But I wonder if he would be willing to try that free-ranging approach for a while, and then later on we can go line by line. Certainly, for most of today, I think we should keep it fairly general if we could.
Mr. Findlay: Agreed. Let us keep it free-wheeling. In the event that you may ask some technical questions, to speed up process, I may ask staff to respond directly, if you do not mind, on the technical stuff, rather than have it conveyed through me, which doubles the time it takes.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Is it agreed, then, that there is leave to proceed in that fashion? [agreed]
Mr. Jennissen: I am just wondering first off whether the minister wanted to respond to some of the comments I made in my opening statement. It looked like he was agreeing or perhaps disagreeing, I was not sure.
Mr. Findlay: Well, I just made a note of the major ones, and, hopefully, I got them all. Clearly, we do have an infrastructure deficit in this country. I have made this point numerous times in the last couple of years as we worked our way through and dealt with the fiscal deficit. We definitely have an infrastructure deficit, particularly roads, but I think it could also be argued the sewer and water. I contend that will impede our ability to be competitive in the North American economy and the global economy that we live in today. It is a point we consistently continue to make with the federal government. To this point, we have not had any success. Although I do think the door is just slightly open now, and we are going to continue to work, as provinces and two territories, to get it open wider.
The member talks about the system aging. Absolutely. The pavements and our substructures are getting older and older. The way I like to look at it is when a lot of the substructure was built, we carried maximum loads of 40,000 pounds, and today B-trains are running 138,000 pounds on that same substructure. So you know it is not up to being able to carry it forever and a day. We have a lot of bridges that are under challenge, and building a bridge can run anywhere from half a million up to $10 million, not a cheap undertaking.
The member touched on the Crow and the elevator closures and railroad abandonment that is underway. It has been a very aggressive process over the last three or four years. We have seen what you might think elevators and railroads working together to figure out what system do they want 10 years down the road. I think the elevator companies and the railroads have both made decisions that are good for them as a company. They will improve their profitability and maybe improve their service to customers. I think the farmer at the farm gate may well come out ahead in this process and get a greater net return for the grain he is transporting, because some of the tariffs that have been traditionally in the system will be reduced because of competition.
The big challenge is to the road system that will have to move that grain from farm gate to end destination. It may be an elevator that used to be five to 10 miles down the road. In the future it may be 50 to 100 to 200 miles. It could be a feedlot operation. It could be a hog barn, it could be a feed mill, it could be a processing plant like oil-crushing in Harrowby or Altona or Can-Oat at Portage. But this has not just happened in the last two or three years. There has been an evolution of movement of bulk agricultural products from rail to road that has been going on, when I think back, it has been going on 30 to 40 years. It has only just accelerated in recent years on bigger trucks that have more power and travel faster.
The member talked about railroad passenger travel. Clearly, at the federal end, it has not received any priority. The member compares our railroad transportation to that in Europe, and they should not even be discussed in this same paragraph, because they are so totally different in how they are set up and how they operate.
The member talks about Kyoto, and clearly the federal commitment made there was that by the year 2008 to 2012, somewhere in that four-year period, we will have reduced our emissions in Canada as a whole by some 6 percent less than they were in 1990. Well, this is 1998, and since then they have grown a fair bit. Absolutely, if nothing changes, but just the way we continue to operate, by the year 2010, we will be plus 19 percent, and the commitment is that we would be minus 6. So that is a 25 percent change. That is dramatic.
When you look at who emits, clearly transportation is a big emitter because of the distances to be travelled and the modes that we use. When we met as ministers last Friday, clearly we raised that with the federal minister. We will not sit by and let the transportation industry be the scapegoat of the federal commitment on the global landscape that we reduce.
I do not see any evidence that the U.S. is prepared to move, and until they are, how can we do things in transportation that make us less competitive with our big competitive base in the U.S.? So it is a big issue; it is a big initiative. There clearly have been more efficient engines the last two or three or four years. There will be more efficient engines, but we cannot impede our ability to transport goods in this country because we are so sparsely populated and so widely spread without hurting our competitiveness.
* (1540)
Airport safety--absolutely a very big issue. When you think of 60,000 airplane movements in the North, it is a lot of movements. So, in one sense, we have a very good record, but the very best record is that which has absolutely no accidents. The Transportation Safety Board is investigating those accidents that have happened, and we have not had any reports yet. But clearly there were other conditions that would have appeared to have affected the outcome of those accidents other than the airports or the airplanes, namely, weather and the human factor.
The member talks about the taxicab industry--oh, he is back to airport safety. I mentioned in my comments that we have set up a working group involving First Nations representatives, the department, federal government, and the aircraft operators to evaluate the 22 airports in the North and to make recommendations in what way we can improve safety.
We have also indicated that we have the Wasagamack Airport cost-sharing agreement in place, and it is a very big undertaking of some $17 million for the airport and the road. So we need federal support in doing some of the things we need to do and they are big undertakings, but generally speaking in the system I think safety can be improved with various kinds of lighting that is currently available.
The member talks about the taxicab industry. It is an industry that is always undergoing evolution. I think we have a lot of taxicab use in Winnipeg. With an economy that is going along fairly nicely, it is always a good positive indicator when you see taxicab use increase. The member talks about the Blueline conversion, the Taxicab Board just approved. I believe it was nine cabs to be added to a system of 397 cabs, so percentage-wise it is not a big increase, but it is a decision the board made after hearing representations of those for and those against.
Winnport has been an initiative that has been underway for approximately five years led by Hubert Kleysen and other individuals in the business sector in Winnipeg. It has been a tremendous undertaking; it has gone through several rebirths in terms of concept of what might work. The concept that is clearly underway right now is airlift between here and southeast Asia with the designation received by Kelowna Flightcraft to China.
The member mentions the airplane that landed here about two weeks ago, 10 days ago. It came from Australia via Anchorage to here. I went over to see the plane when it was here and talk to the crew and the people that were involved in setting it up. It was, I guess, symbolic of what can happen and what life is all about now in terms of the global economy.
A pesticide or herbicide that is used by farmers in western Canada, the active ingredient is manufactured in Scotland, and then it is moved by ship over to Australia where it is formulated into a prepackaged condition. Then, normally, it is moved by ocean and by truck freight to get it to western Canada where it is finally packaged for the consumer, in other words, the farm.
Because of the early spring, two or three weeks early, they did not have enough product over here fast enough, so approximately on a Thursday or Friday they contacted Evergreen Airways and Winnport to see if they could bring it into western Canada. Five days later it landed here in Winnipeg, a 747 that will be typical of what Winnport will use.
I talked to the flight crew and asked them what Winnipeg is like as a place to land and they said, man, is it flat out here. That was perhaps a positive comment, and they said the flight went smooth and beautiful and Winnport is looking at having that kind of aircraft moving in and out of here, so it looked good. It is a concept that Winnport wants to have up and running and I have lots of confidence that it will be in place by September of this year.
The National Transportation Week, clearly it is an impetus to promote the industry of transportation. We have been a hub in rail and road, and I think we will continue to remain an air passenger hub, and now we want to promote the concept of an air cargo hub in and out of Winnipeg. We certainly have the rail and trucking activities here, 24-hour airport, all the essential ingredients to continue to remain the transportation hub, strategically located within east-west parameters of Canada and with global access over the North Pole. I think we are very well positioned.
Whoever says we are not spending enough on our aging system, I will not disagree with that comment, but in the context of government priorities and challenges, fiscal control challenges, we are spending what is available to us as efficiently as possible. I will continue to always say that when you collect taxes out of an economic system, you have a moral obligation to invest that back in it. I am pointing my finger particularly at the federal government who continues to collect, and in the '95 budget added a cent and a half a litre to collect another $500 million annually across the country, and so far has shown no commitment back to the road system.
Just further information, from what I said when I was speaking, take the six-year period, '92-98, the federal government has collected $950 million in road-related excise taxes and spent in Canada, through the SHIP agreement, $35 million. That is immoral if nothing else, and this is affecting our ability to be competitive. Thank goodness, to improve our trade competitiveness and tourism competitiveness, we did four-lane Highway 75 between Winnipeg and the U.S. border because it is strategic nowadays.
The National Highways Program, the member mentioned would only cover 75, 1, 16 and the Perimeter, but it is 5 percent of our network, but right now it encompasses about 25 percent of our road capital expenditures just to keep it at an acceptable level. So if we had a partner there for half of that, that would free up money to get to the system further away.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
That is our initial target and hopefully we can get federal support either to invest in the road system they want to tax or removing themselves from the taxation field in terms of fuel taxes to give the provinces the ability to collect the revenue that they can use to spend on the system.
So I think I covered the majority of the items that the member mentioned, and we will discuss them more specifically as the discussion goes along.
Mr. Jennissen: I thank the minister for that. Reading the letter sent by Chris Lorenc, president, and Dave Harrison, chairman, which accompanied the national infrastructure policy of sustained commitment. This is the report put out by the Infrastructure Council of Manitoba. One of the comments was made that municipal infrastructure deficit in this country is in the vicinity of $44 billion, and we need another $18 billion to be invested in the strategic national highway systems, as the minister says. Those are huge sums and we do not quite know how to get at sums that big.
But nonetheless we have to start somewhere, so I guess my question for the minister then is: within our own limited capacity, facing the context that he mentioned, the fiscal constraint, and being aware that we are not spending enough, how do we go about extending, you know, getting a larger sum? I am suggesting that perhaps when the government doubles, for example, its amount of money to pay off the debt from $75 million to $150 million, and that is certainly laudable from one perspective, but from another perspective, if our infrastructure is so badly beaten, would it not then make more sense to spend that money on infrastructure because certainly there are many calls for it.
* (1550)
Mr. Findlay: This is a discussion that goes on aggressively every year at budget preparation time, and there are contending forces for available extra expenditure. The member would acknowledge that health and education and basic social services get a prioritization higher than infrastructure. I think that is true right across the country. It is unavoidable. People want a good road, but if they have a health problem in the family, or personally, that takes priority instantly regardless of anything else. Expenditures to supply high technology in health today is very costly, so I do not argue against any of those expenditures whatsoever. I just argue that we make that consideration as time goes by for the deficit that we face in infrastructure and the significance of the transportation infrastructure to our overall economic competitiveness and ability to grow in the future.
I guess I was happy that we got the $7.1 million additional this year in the capital and $3.2 in maintenance to deal with our most urgent needs. Actually, it is never enough, and more would be helpful, but as I said earlier, I cannot see how provinces can deal with this problem when we have got the feds in there taking the tax money out of the system. That is where we are all targeted as provinces that they have got to contribute. In every organization that I know of as infrastructure counsellor, Canadian Automobile Association, Canadian Trucking Association, heavy construction industry, any user group out there, they are not targeting the provinces.
They believe the provinces are doing something that is fair and reasonable, although not enough given the need, but the federal government has a responsible to do either one of two things: contribute money in partnership with the provinces. But then they say, well, it is a provincial responsibility. I say, well, okay, that is fine, then back off the taxing. If the roads are still a provincial responsibility, what are you doing with them? Taking off a 10.5-cent tax on gasoline and 0.4 cent on diesel, what are you doing there? They do not really have a good answer for that. So we will hopefully make progress in the next short period of time. We have discussions about that every time ministers meet, and I felt last time that the door was open just slightly.
Clearly, it is an item of significant interest to Finance ministers and to premiers right across this country, and our Premier (Mr. Filmon) and our Finance minister (Mr. Stefanson) have led discussions in that context, that if we are going to have a vibrant economy, we have got to be competitive, and within North America, particularly, transportation competitiveness is very, very critical.
In the U.S., going way back to the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, he had this concept of roads to markets which led to the Interstate system and then to ISTEA funding, and now we are into TEA 21 funding which is hundreds of millions of dollars for corridors.
We are going to lose more and more trucking activity out of Canada to the U.S. if we cannot keep our major infrastructure system up to some level of acceptability for the road users. It improves competitiveness, economic activity. It improves safety; it improves tourism. There are so many spin-off benefits. I have a hard time understanding the federal logic that they can just sit on the sidelines on this issue.
Mr. Jennissen: I am certainly sympathetic to the minister's argument that the federal government has to put more money into strategic infrastructure. There is no question that all provincial governments in Canada agree to that, but, still, perhaps, we have to fight a little harder to get a larger share of the pie out of the provincial government because we must realize that those transportation links are critical, and if we are to grow wealth, increase the wealth, we cannot do that kind of thing unless we have proper transportation facilities and links and connections.
What worries me about this particularly is that when we are in stressful situations or fiscally constraining situations, we tend to pull together to the areas where there are larger populations. So you see relatively reasonable transportation links around the large hubs, but the further you get out into the hinterland, the worse it gets, so that you start ending up where I am, in Cranberry Portage or Flin Flon or Pukatawagan or Churchill or wherever, and it is not taken as seriously. Surely, if this country is to grow, if there is some vision, we have to extend those links. Like the minister says, the trade corridor is right from Churchill into Mexico. That is certainly important.
I want to ask the minister about something the Free Press reported a number of weeks ago. I am sorry, I do not know the exact date, but it was an internal report I presume commissioned by the minister or by the government regarding the need for more money for our highways. I think it was Chris Lorenc or it might have been someone else who had mentioned that the minimum requirement--now, I do not know if this report was leaked or not--would be at least $180-some million a year to be put in upgrading the highway system. First of all, is there such a report?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the member can appreciate that in the course of doing business and understanding how you are operating, you have to constantly generate information within your department. The department has, on an ongoing basis, generated information to determine where we are at. It is information we use in arguments with the federal government and information we use in developing a strategy within the government.
The numbers that the member mentions, $180 million, how they came about is in order to keep our infrastructure from getting any older or getting any more depreciated, we believe that we should be spending $135 million a year on capital, and to build the system to serve the needs of the future in terms of new four-laning or new interchanges or new roads, we could be spending another $45 million a year. So that totals $180 million. That is internally generated, but it is information that is generated regularly and continually so that we know where we stand.
We have to be able to present a case to the federal government because if we did not present them something that showed what our need is, they could say: well, you are doing okay the way you are. Thank you very much. See you later.
So that is the purpose of it. It is for many uses, but there is nothing confidential about it. There is nothing leaked about it. It is information that is constantly at our fingertips so that we know where we are at, just as we know where all our bridges are, total structure capacity, those that need some work on them in the next two or three years and those that will last for another 10 or 20 years. You have to have that engineering information on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Jennissen: Is the minister saying, then, that there is no such specific report, and if there is, it is just in the general nature of continual evaluation? If there is such a specific report, I certainly would like to see it or would like it to be a little more public, because it seems to be saying the things that we are saying; that we need to spend more money on infrastructure.
Mr. Findlay: The member asks if there is a real report. Yes, there is a real report that we have put together. To have further confidence in that what we have generated within the department will meet certain tests, we had asked a consultant to review it, to just examine hypotheses, information that we had in there, to see if he could verify that what we have there is real and factual and it is the kind of information we should continue to use. That is why I guess that maybe it is seen as suddenly a report that is brand new because the consultant obviously talked to somebody and created thoughts that were maybe different than what people had before.
There is nothing unique about it. These are ongoing numbers that have not changed. I think it is imperative we generate these so that we know where we stand and we can make the right investments in the right places with the money we have available.
Mr. Jennissen: If I look at the figures for the provincial totals that we spend on upgrading and capital, 1982-83 was over a hundred million, close to $101 million, if I am correct, and certainly $105 million in '89-90, $108 million in '90-91, I believe and so on--$109 million roughly in '94-95. With inflation, certainly, we are putting less money in each year than really we were buying, say, 10 years ago or even 15 years ago.
I guess my question is: at what point does the system reach a critical mass and breaks down? Obviously, there has to be some bigger intervention. If we are spending $106 million now and we were spending $100-and-some million, $101 million in 1982, 16 years ago, I am sure that $102 million then would have bought a larger chunk of goodies than it would today. I am not sure in inflation terms, but let us say a third would seem reasonable to me. So in fact we are not picking up the speed; we seem to be going down.
* (1600)
Mr. Findlay: Well, I guess one can argue this, Mr. Chairman, any way he wants. We have to do what we can with what we have available to us. We would all like to have more. One can say, well, if you take inflation into account, yes, maybe we are lower than we were a while back, but in the course of how we build roads or how we design roads, we are certainly trying to design them and keep the cost down per mile to what is absolutely essential to serve the need. I mean, there are certain cases the width of the shoulder may not be as wide as it used to be because we have to get distance of road improvements and maximize that as much as we can.
You will see on the Trans-Canada particularly, we repaved, the substructure is good, the shoulder is good, we went in and repaved the surface so you have a good driving surface restored because the ruts get worn out where the wheels run. Occasionally sometimes we just go in and just put the strips exactly where the wheels are instead of the whole width. All these are designed to be more cost effective or stretch $100 million as far as possible.
Chip sealing, another initiative of 5 million a year. It is a means of increasing the life of that existing road surface as opposed to repaving. It is a lower-cost way to give you a better driving surface and seal the road and keep the moisture out. There are hundreds of other ways that we do things that are more cost effective than was the case in the past. But the system will not fail completely. I mean, it has 10,000 moving parts out there, or 10,000 items: bridges, roads, approaches, interchanges, and wherever there is a problem, we deal with it either through maintenance or capital. They keep the whole system functioning as well as possible, so it will not fail. There will not be a period we go over the cliff, in my mind. Engineers may argue differently, but they do not get a chance to talk right now.
I think we do the best we can with the money we have, and we live within our means. I think the department has done a very effective job, as the member mentioned earlier, in maintenance activities that restored the roads fairly quickly after this spring's breakup and dealing with the challenges on an ongoing basis.
I drive other roads, and I have seen them put in some fairly significant patches that are not just filling the hole in but they cut out an area maybe three or four times as big as the hole and replace the whole thing. They do a beautifully smooth job as opposed to what might have been the way it was done three or four years ago. So all told, we do the best we can with what is available to improve safety and to improve the rideability of the roads. But I will be the first to acknowledge we can never get enough done fast enough to satisfy very many people.
Mr. Jennissen: I do agree with the minister that I do not foresee an imminent breakdown either. I know it does not happen like that. It is not an all-or-nothing situation. But I still have a concern, and this may be ideological, not so much on my part but perhaps on the government's part, that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot talk about progress and stimulating the economy and building the economy and creating wealth, if you like, and at the same time also maybe meet that other goal which is of course a balanced budged and keeping a tight rein fiscally. I mean, both of those are popular, but can you do both at once is the problem. Maybe ideologically it is great to ride that horse for awhile, but you are going to fall one way or the other at some point, I would think.
I am just asking the minister point blank: there must be a ideological element here where the government is trying to play both games at the same time, and I just do not think that is a tenable position for very long, any more than it was in Saskatchewan. You can downplay the road system for a number of years, because you are simply forced to it by the legacy of the Devine government; you are a basket case economically, but at some point you are going to be stuck with a bigger bill to fix roads. I am just saying: are we not going to be in the same boat, let us say, five years or 10 years down the road? We are going to be facing a staggering amount of money in order to even bring it up to the standards we have today.
Mr. Findlay: One principle we have certainly tried to hold to is that the money collected from the road-system users in forms of provincial fuel taxes is invested back into the system, capital or maintenance or other activities. We have held very strongly to that, and I think to our credit we have been able to achieve that. That is acknowledged by people who say we should do more. The other thing we must remember is we are in a whole different world now than they were 10 years ago. If you are going to have jobs, you are going to have economic activity, you have to have a competitive environment.
We have taken the position as a government over 10 years to keep taxes low, keep taxes generally frozen. Some have been reduced strategically to help people be able to compete, to help us be an attractive place to come invest, like for Maple Leaf to invest here. Maple Leaf will supply up to 2,000 jobs directly and then a whole pile of indirect jobs. That is the benefit of a competitive economy, and a competitive economy is one that does not have extreme taxes, or the investing community does not have a fear that the government is going to suddenly go wild and tax them out of existence, because they can move. They will move overnight.
We have the trucking companies coming who want lower diesel fuel taxes. They want more money spent on the roads, but they said to be competitive we have to haul bigger loads and pay less taxes. Everybody wants to pay less taxes. We are saying that is not on; you have to continue with the investment in the system from the existing tax base. But, to think we could increase taxes, we would definitely hurt people in our businesses, hurt investment, and would cause us to have fewer jobs here.
Clearly, in the trucking industry, which is the big-growth sector in our transportation activity, we have tremendous success here in the number of trucking companies and trucking jobs in Manitoba. Some of those companies run 80 percent, 85 percent of their miles in the U.S. because that is where the freight is hauled to and where the freight is hauled back from, but they are located here, and that is a benefit to us. We would not want to do something that will say they should move their head office a hundred miles south just to get into the U.S. We have seen U.S. companies come up here and invest; we have seen CN go down and invest in the U.S. to have a system that will move goods north and south along the corridor concept that we have talked about earlier.
So, in balance, you have to be an attractive place to invest; you have to keep the taxes such that your businesses can compete; and, at the same time, you have to source enough funds to keep the infrastructure in a reasonable and acceptable state. That is a tough balancing act, but I do not care what political stripe across this country, I see every province other than maybe B.C. doing the same thing, trying to live within their means, keep taxes moderate and meet the urgent needs that are in front of the public. They are health, education, social services, and then infrastructure falls in fourth. One can argue that is bad; one can argue that is good. It comes down to a point of view, but philosophically I try not to get hung up on that concept of discussion, as I see whether it is NDP, Liberal or Conservative or PQ governments across this country provincially, they do understand the dilemma we have to grow our economy, create jobs and, at the same time, have a system that is competitive.
* (1610)
So there is no quick and easy answer. Yes, I would like more money. Yes, I argue for more money within our system. I argue with the department how we can stretch our funds to maximize the outcome of scarce resources, and the federal argument is always front and centre.
Mr. Jennissen: Mr. Chair, last year during Estimates was also the time, I think, when we were assessing the damage or the potential damage that the Red River flood was causing to our road structure. I know we batted a number of figures about that seemed to be ballpark figures, and I think people were quite accurate on that, actually, later on looking back on it, wisdom and hindsight now, but just for my records could the minister give us a little update on exactly what the costs were?
I am particularly interested in, you know, how much of that was paid for by the federal government both in terms of percentages and dollar. I believe they cover--what?--90 percent, more than 90 percent.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, the flood-related costs, I will give the member a total, and I will break it down to a few numbers. The total was $22 million. The Brunkild dike construction costs were $11.4 million, and flood fighting activities were $1.7 million. So that gives us a total of approximately $13 million associated with dealing with the flood on an ongoing basis, the dike plus flood fighting activities. That leaves $9 million for rehabilitation costs after the flood. So $13 million was spent during the flood and $9 million after.
I can give the member a bit of a breakdown as to where those expenditures were after the flood: Highway 75 $2.2 million; Highway 59 $111,000; Highway 23 $95,000; and various PRs $5.7 million; bridges $850,000.
Now, the federal government, in terms of recouping costs from them, that is handled by the government as a whole through Government Services. We submit the bills and the verification to Government Services, who then goes through the process of collecting from the federal government. The money that comes back from the federal government goes to general revenue. It does not come to the Department of Highways. So we are involved in the Brunkild dike, flood fighting and rehabilitation, and we hope the government gets reimbursed because these expenditures did not come directly out of our capital budget or maintenance budget. They were separate flood fighting involvement.
So I could not tell the member where it is at in terms of getting the money back from the federal government. That is because it is handled by Government Services.
As I mentioned in my opening comments, we are also seeing some extraordinary activity on our roads, that from an engineering point of view, we believe it is associated with the fact that where the water was high last year, it got in under the road, particularly in heavy clays. The water did not get back out, and the road did not dry out. It led to some extraordinary costs this year, extra gravel, and so on and so forth. We calculate that cost to be approximately $3 million of costs this year that are more directly related to what happened to the roads 12 months ago. That can be added on to the $22-million figure, and we are going to try to get that as part of the compensation package for federal cost-sharing.
Mr. Jennissen: I am not sure if I understand all that correctly, but is it possible then when you take into account--regardless of which route that money took from the federal government, that we are actually putting less money as a province, less, that is, provincial money into the highway system than we would have normally. From the federal government, because of fighting the flood, we are getting a chunk of that money which then comes to us, and actually out of the $106 million, let us hypothetically say that $15 million of that came out of the federal government? Is that correct or is that incorrect?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, as I referred to earlier, this is over and above and outside of the Department of Highways completely, all these expenditures. They are in addition to our current annual capital budget and our current annual maintenance budget. These are over and above and in addition. So we spent the money out of the flood fund, and, hopefully, the federal government reimbursement puts a significant amount back into the flood fund, but that will be handled universally for Natural Resources, Highways and any other department as a package.
These funds did not affect our personal capital or maintenance expenditures. One could say, yes, the federal government contributed to the road system this way, but it was only because of the flood. It was not because they did it because the road wore out. Those roads, some of them, particular Highway 75, one section was basically brand new, and a million dollars had to be spent to get it back into shape because the flood had just ripped it apart.
So hopefully that is a sufficient understanding of where we are at. The total figure, really, if we want to add it all up, we believe $22 million associated with expenditures in '97 and of the $3 million associated with expenditures in '98 that are flood related.
Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Mr. Jennissen: On April 20, 1998, the representative of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, UMM, met with our caucus and presented a paper and I am sure they also met with the minister. I am just wanting to read a little section of that. The UMM has spent the last year working with the Department of Highways and other stakeholders to develop a proposal for a transportation advisory council.
The council is designed to assist with planning and the setting of infrastructure priorities in both a regional and province-wide basis. We hope to discuss this proposal in more detail with the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay). I was just wondering, could the minister give us an update on this direction?
Mr. Findlay: I attended a meeting in January, I believe, of '97 in the great city of Winkler. Just for the member in the Chair today, he may reflect on that. We met with officials from KAP and UMM, talked about the challenges we faced, they faced, all around the same kind of discussion we just had here for the last half hour. They thought, well, maybe we could work more closely together instead of saying you are responsible for this and you that, and you should do this and you should do that. And I said, absolutely, I am always prepared to work in partnership where we can jointly benefit from it.
Subsequent to that, I had a meeting on March 27 with senior people from KAP and UMM, and we set up a working group to formulate how this transportation advisory council process might unfold. Individuals from KAP, Keystone and the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Highways department have put together a proposal which the department is currently reviewing around the concept of a provincial transportation strategy which I strongly support the principle of and hopefully it can help to present our case to the public at large, and again further support our concept of negotiating with the federal government. That has got to be a key outcome of this.
Another little factor I should throw in and just let the member know how frustrated we can get at times, because remember when they had the Crow payment to the farm community of some $1.6 billion or something like that? They announced that there would be a transportation-related adjustment fund, or I guess they called it an adjustment fund, period; $140 million for three provinces and it worked out Manitoba would get something like $26 million.
* (1620)
Well, as KAP, all other farm organizations, UMM and ourselves were absolutely 100 percent in support of every dollar of that should go to road infrastructure, either municipal roads, or provincial roads, there was nowhere near enough to deal with the impact that the elimination of the WGTA would create, but at least it must go to roads.
We were unanimous on that, and we met with the former member for Portage, M.P. Jon Gerrard, and after that meeting he went out and announced he was going to have a round of meetings around the province to find out what people wanted to spend on it if it was not for roads. And guess what the outcome was? They announced a whole series of projects, in two particular ridings most notably, but it involved anything and everything but roads, unfortunately. So we lose in every turn, even though we worked together. As I said to Mr. Gerrard at the time, you have got unanimous support. Anybody who might criticize you says one thing. I cannot imagine how you could politically take another position, but he did. Maybe he got his just reward at the end of the day.
Mr. Jennissen: Mr. Chair, I would like to, if I could, maybe move on to some specific roads now. I know we could keep it general, but there will be other general areas. Either that or we go do the other general areas and come back. We are on roads now anyway, and I do not know how things are going to unfold this week, so maybe I better ask about notorious 391.
An Honourable Member: Get it in early.
Mr. Jennissen: Get in early, yes. Now I do know that a lot of money was put into 391, and northerners are thankful for that, but, of course, as the minister says, it was not enough. But it seems that at least this particular spring, people that worked on that road like advisory groups such as PR 391 committee, Barbara Bloodworth and others, seemed extremely peeved that certain projects did not get ahead, and I cannot blame her.
But the question I have is were there sums of money set aside last year that were then not expended this year, were not carried out? In other words, what was planned was actually carried out this year? Or were some things planned, or appeared to be planned, and yet we decided not to go ahead with it this year?
Mr. Findlay: I take the position across the province that although we do not have enough money to do everything that anybody wants, we will spread the money across the province by region, or however you want to describe a region, reasonably consistent with traffic volumes, percent of network sort of approach. In the North, we have approximately 11 percent of the network, so we have moved it up to 11 percent of expenditure in the North. The North consists of 391, 373, a very good chunk of Highway 6, Highway 39, Highway 60, Highway 280, and there may be the odd other one that I missed.
Some people might take the position that 391 is the only road in the North. I say it is not. Highway 6 is a very important link for all kinds of reasons, and it must not be ignored. So while we are spending 11 percent in the North because it is 11 percent of the network, it makes up approximately 4.5 percent of the travel miles in the province. There are a lot of roads that run less than 150 vehicles a day.
When we do our program announcements, we have a two-year ruling program. If I have got $105 million, there will be announcements out there of programs to be done. They are two times that this gives people a year's advance notice that the project is coming, gives the industry advance notice of what tenders will be coming out. So we make announcement in 1998-99, it is projects that will primarily be done in the year out. Some will be done this year, but what will be done this year is primarily what was announced the year before.
So we look specifically at 391. In 1997-98, the projects that were carried out totalled $2.03 million on Highway 391. That was last year. This year, because of projects that have previously been announced, $4.3 million is spent on that highway this fiscal year. The biggest project is $2.8 million of grading on a section between Thompson and Nelson House from 16.8 kilometres east of Nelson House to 11.9 kilometres east, $2.8 million; along with some other projects, $500,000 for grade improvements. Sealcoat will be done on a section from 280 to 21 kilometres westerly for $200,000; for additional gravel, another $500,000, from Nelson House to the Suwannee River. These are the kinds of projects that are on an ongoing basis, so somebody just looks at what was announced this spring, and says: oh, there is not enough there for 391. What they fail to recognize was the projects already in the queue from the previous year to be done this year, which is really twice as much, over $4 million this year versus $2 million last year.
Again, I will concede, it is not enough to satisfy anybody, but we are working chunk by chunk by chunk to improve the road. I have had letters from communities up there that congratulate us on making efforts. They realize we cannot do it all at once. We move piece by piece. We are improving the maintenance of the road as well as creating the quality of the road by project after project.
I get letters of congratulations, and I also get somebody who takes the opinion: well, if I did not get what I want today; I am going to go away mad. I cannot ignore Highway 6. I cannot ignore Highway 373. I cannot ignore Highways 60 or 39. I get the same requests from certain communities in southern Manitoba demanding that every expenditure, every dollar in your budget, you should spend it on our roads for the next two years. To heck with everybody else, because we are the most important. I will never accept that argument. I will not even entertain that discussion. That is unfair and unreasonable.
There are certain hot spots where we need to target our expenditures as quickly as possible, but, at the same time, there are about 400 hot spots really. We will work slowly and steadily at all of them, bit by bit by bit.
So that is generally the information behind where we are on 391. We will continue to do projects every year as is determined to be rational and reasonable by the department as a whole.
Mr. Jennissen: Yes, I do understand what the minister is saying, but, just again, in defence of why the northerners seem to be persistently nagging on this, perhaps it is because we need to use different criteria. I just do not think the situation is the same if you are in a southern farm community where there are four ways out of town. You know, if road A does not work, road B works or C works or D works. That is not the case if you live in Lynn Lake or Leaf Rapids. You just have that one road. If you take a look at Lynn Lake for just a minute, you remember that the airport is under stress because the feds have basically thrown up their hands and said: you take care of it. There is some transition funding involved, that is true.
The road, as you know, needs a lot of money, and now, to add even more to the potential misery is the fact, and I do not want to give the minister any excuses to spend less money up there; but, if it is true what HBM&S is saying, that the year 2003 Ruttan mine no longer is functional in Leaf Rapids--we hope it will be, but there is a good chance it will not be--that may make the railroad no longer viable. Then you could face a community that does not have a good road, an airport in trouble, and a railroad that is question mark.
So it seems to me that we are being hit on all fronts. I am, of course, happy that the minister has increased the funding to 11 percent for the North. I think it was 4 percent a little while ago, but, again, we look at the tourist potential up there, we look at the forestry potential and the mining potential. We still think it is one of the great underexploited areas, if I can use the word "exploit" in the positive sense. We certainly feel that it has to be treated somewhat differently, because we do not have the population density there.
Another factor is, of course, those roads are not always travelled that much because they are not that good. You do not drive as often. Secondly, I think northerners car-pool a lot. They put a lot of people in one vehicle. So I do not think it is always reflective of what you actually count in terms of vehicles, but I do appreciate the positives, and I would not want to sound like I am not grateful for the improvements for the money that the minister has put into roads like 391. Certainly going from 4 percent to 11 percent is an improvement, and we would encourage him to continue that direction to get up around 18 percent.
* (1630)
I think we do have to look at the uniqueness of the North and also the potential of the North. It is not the same--I know it is nice to be democratic, but it is not the same as living in the south. There is not a way you can get out of town three or four different directions. There is just one way, and if that one way is not functional, then you are in trouble. I could read the minister a number of letters--because of time constraints, I do not think I will do that at the moment--of people that have to go to the doctor from Lynn Lake or Leaf Rapids or to go to Thompson, that the road is in a horrible condition. It is icy; they should not be driving. Nobody should be driving that road if it is in that condition, but they cannot postpone that particular appointment. They go on the road, they slide off the road. The vehicle is damaged. They pay more insurance and they are really angry. So for them the offloading ends up on their shoulders.
So we do not spend the necessary money to fix that road, but you are sure taking it out in terms of mufflers and windshields and increased premiums for Autopac and so on. That is a serious concern because it is already difficult enough in the North in terms of living. The cost of living is much higher and so on, so we need every break we can get. I am of the firm conviction, having lived there for a number of years, that is the place, eventually, where tourism is going to boom. Of course, we do already have viable mining industries and very good forestry industries. We certainly want to keep them going.
So I guess I am pleading for an entire region which I think is possibly--the potential is not always as recognized in this House as we feel it ought to be.
Mr. Findlay: I do not dispute what the member said about the North being special conditions in terms of transportation, and I guess that is why in the communities that are unserviced we have 22 airports which are totally funded and operated and maintained and built by the province. Our annual budget there is some $4.9 million.
The communities the member mentions depend a lot on forestry and mining, and as a province we have definitely made this a very attractive province for prospecting; certain incentives that have led to a lot of prospecting. The member mentions a certain mine that has been a questionable long-term viability. Well, the issue there is where is the next mine? Is there another deposit that can breathe new life into the area? Right across the North, this is an issue, and prospecting is a long-term thing.
I understand and appreciate the value and significance of roads. Again, we are dealing with the federal decision with airports that does affect communities, but the member cannot expect us to instantly be able to rush in and accept all the offloading and still build the roads at the same time.
I am pretty sure I have mentioned this in previous Estimates, but, just very quickly, I think the biggest problem we have with roads like 391 is that when it was originally built, it was built to pioneer standards, unfortunately. It was not built by the Department of Highways. I believe it was built under the auspices of either the companies or Northern Affairs, and then it got turned over to Highways somewhere in the early '70s, and they said, here, good luck. Well, it has been a challenge no matter who has been in government ever since then to get this road up to an acceptable modern standard. It was built for trucks and hauling, or lumber or whatever. It was not built for every citizen to use in the way they want to use it today.
Occasionally, somebody says, well, just punch a road in. Just give us a basic road so that we can get a mine open. Not while I am minister, I am sorry. We are going to build it right the first time, so that you do not have this impact 10, 15, 20, 25 years later that it is not an acceptable road simply because it was not designed, built and developed properly.
That is the age old problem we are dealing with, and as we work through it and build it stretch by stretch, it is built to today's standards and will serve for a long time into the future. But it is very, very expensive, and I think the total figure for rebuilding that Highway 391 from end to end, I think I heard a figure of $90 million or something somewhere in the past. No matter whether I am plus or minus $10 million or $20 million, it is a big number, and we will work our way at it with chunks of $2 million approximately per project each year.
Mr. Jennissen: Yes, in response to what the minister was saying and back to what I said earlier about the North and the importance of the North, I find it interesting that mining is the second biggest money producer for the province after agriculture basically, and yet you have got the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Newman), and he is also doing Northern Affairs; he is also doing Hydro. It is almost like mining has become an afterthought, and it is certainly a big money producer for us up there.
But I was going to change the topic slightly for the minister, and he just reminded me of it when he was making a point a minute ago, and that is does the province ever take on a chunk of road--well, it was not a road before. I am thinking specifically of a chunk of road outside of Snow Lake that was a railroad, and Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting does not want to take liability for what could happen on that road. I believe it is somewhere between--I have heard conflicting reports. I have never been on the road; it goes past Morgan Lake, three and nine kilometres. The reason I am asking the question is that there are people involved in harvesting shiners, which are minnows, and they have had this operation for a number of years, but when they bulldozed that road shut because Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting does not want to take any chances, does not want to be liable for anything that happens, this person's livelihood was cut off as well as some people who do tourism out of some of the smaller lakes.
I really do not know how to resolve the impasse, because Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting says if the province is willing to take on this road, yes, we will unbulldoze it. Fine, they can have it, but I do not know. Do we ever do things like that? Is that a possibility? Because certainly, in this case, we have a person who pays a fee, I think it is $52 a year, to harvest minnows. He harvests between 20,000 and 30,000 buckets a year, and now he is left without a way of making a living. It also impacts on several lodges as well. So I am just asking that, is that a potential? Is that something we could look at?
Mr. Findlay: I guess the quick answer is no. We are so challenged with the system that we have in not being able to meet the needs, it is very difficult to take on another stretch of road and, of course, you are immediately expected to build it and that takes money out of the network we already have. This is a private road--did the member say it was owned by Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting?
Mr. Jennissen: It used to be a railroad bed and what I gather was that people were using it to have access to certain lakes. There was a gate on it with a lock, but I think Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, who were technically the owners of that former railroad bed now used as a road, were a little concerned that accidents could happen with possibly teenage drivers on that road that they put some large boulders on it to prevent anyone travelling that road. That has really hurt some of the lodge owners and particularly this person who harvests shiners in the spring. It basically destroyed his business. We do not know any way around the impasse because Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting is saying we do not want the liability. On the other hand, the province issues a licence to a guy to harvest minnows, and he cannot get through to the place that he used to get to for the last five, six years.
Mr. Findlay: Well, what Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting has said is very similar to what you hear the railroads say when they abandon a line. They want to just tear it up and get out of there and turn the land over because they do not want any further liability. The province has a lot of private roads, and maybe the different users of the road--there was just the minnow operator and I think you said some tourism activities or whatever up there--should look at negotiating with Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting about taking it over and operating it as a private road for their use.
I can appreciate what Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting is saying because I am sure their insurer is telling them, unless you do this or that, you will be liable and we will not be covering you. That is just a suspicion, so they are protecting themselves, but I think the users have a window, since there is a roadbed there, to discuss how they could operate it as a private road for their own purposes, because that is done in other locations in the province. But for us to come in and spill the road, although there are all kinds of reasons why one could argue we should, given our challenges all over the system, it is virtually impossible to be able to do that and respond and build a road because it would undoubtedly cost a fair bit of money building it to our standard. Maybe they can operate it on some form of relationship with Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting and bring it up to a standard that serves their purpose and manage it that way.
* (1640)
Mr. Jennissen: I understand the minister's reluctance to take on new liabilities or new costs, for sure, but that leads me to the next possibility because Pukatawagan has not given up on all-weather roads, so some of those logging roads now being used by Tolko at some point will be connected to Puk. In fact, I think they are very close to Pukatawagan. Does that mean then that we will not take some degree of responsibility for that section, say, from close to Sherridon to Pukatawagan?
Mr. Findlay: Well, again, Mr. Chairman, it goes back to what I said earlier. Taking over pioneer roads is what was done in the North, and we have the problem trying to get them up to modern day standards. These logging roads are just trails pushed through with a Cat, just enough for the trucks to be able to utilize them. Other users would find that very unsatisfactory very quick, and, if we took it over, we would be the one that would be challenged to rebuild them. I mean, it is well intended, but it is a very costly process to do that.
I think, as I said earlier, if you are going to build a road, build it right so it lasts and serves the public for a fair period of time and it is safe for travel, because if you let people on a road and it is not up to snuff, somebody has a liability there if somebody runs into a rock or whatever happens.
Mr. Jennissen: If that link was made from the Sherridon road to Pukatawagan, that would be treated the same as the Sherridon road is treated now then under the provincial jurisdiction?
Mr. Findlay: I can relate to the member that in another instance, we are talking with a company about some partnership of building a road where they will be involved in certain respect to expenses because they want it for resource extraction and the idea that it be built right so that ultimately it would be a road used by everybody and that it could well become part of the provincial network.
There are other examples of different kinds of discussions that are going on that serves both purposes and the extraction company, the resource company, gets the benefit and the citizens at large get the benefit. We are always open to those kind of discussions, some degree of partnership arrangement that works for all parties.
Mr. Jennissen: I thought I heard the minister saying in this particular case it could, in fact, involve Tolko, the federal government and the provincial government and some degree of cost-sharing, because I believe Tolko at this point has already pushed through those roads very close to Pukatawagan, so they are going to get used one way or another. I just do not know what the status is. That is why I was asking the question.
I would also like to ask the minister about another road, and I have a habit of just referring to these roads by their destination rather than their numbers, and this is Moose Lake and also the road to Cormorant. Phillip Buck, the Chief of Moose Lake, talked as if there is some big initiative possible in the future and perhaps cost-sharing with the federal government. I just wanted to check if that is, indeed, a direction we are going to go or what is planned for that particular road? Is there anything planned specifically and is the federal government involved?
Mr. Findlay: Maybe I will give this answer and then I would request if could we take a five-minute break, because I think we are going through until six, if I am not mistaken.
I was involved with a meeting with Moose Lake people approximately a year ago, and they certainly had a proposal for what they would like to do for the economic development of their area which is certainly laudable. They wanted to have an all-weather road on the current winter road alignment running straight east of The Pas, or the plant. It is certainly a fairly expensive road to build. It was short in the distance, no question about that.
We are in discussions with Moose Lake loggers about accommodations on 384 during the summertime with regard to weights and that sort of thing to allow them to continue to function. We are not aware of any discussions with the federal government at this point in time. There may well have some with them, and I hope the heck they succeed.
But we have had discussions. I know there is potential there, but there is also big expense involved. I know that they would like to see that road extended all the way through to Highway 6, which would be another tremendous undertaking but would have great benefits for opening up the area for further logging in what I understand is a fairly good area. There is a lot that has been discussed on the table. If they are able to get some involvement out of the federal government, I would be very, very happy to see that.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Mr. Jennissen: I believe the minister is requesting a short recess, is that correct, for maybe five or 10 minutes?
Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to take a short recess? [agreed] The committee will take a short recess, five minutes.
The committee recessed at 4:48 p.m.
The committee resumed at 4:52 p.m.
Mr. Jennissen: I was happy to hear the minister say that he had met with a delegation from Moose Lake because I know, having talked with Mr. Phillip Buck--in fact, he was a former student of mine--how important it is to the Moose Lake people to get a decent road. Certainly, if they could get a shorter road to The Pas over that winter road that goes by the plant would be very helpful for them.
I was also going to ask the minister about some other places as well, and some other roads, for example, South Indian Lake. We had talked about South Indian Lake before. Now I know that, as part of the Northern Flood Agreement, I believe there was a commitment to building an all-weather road which, depending on whom you talked to, also included a bridge or a ferry. I do not know under whose jurisdiction that falls at this moment, but I presume the Highways department would be involved in this at some stage. Is there any update on that because I do not really know if that has gone much beyond even preliminary survey stage? The road around the bay to South Indian Lake.
Mr. Findlay: Yes, we have, under the commitments, made in the Northern Flood Agreement--Highways is accountable for delivering the all-weather, year-round passage. The road around the west side of South Bay will cost some $15 million, and it will still involve a ferry at the north end. The ferry costs are not included in the $15 million for the new road. The existing road from Leaf Rapids, which is about 75 kilometres, will obviously need some upgrading, too, so $15 million is for only a portion of costs, and there will be the existing road plus the ferry costs on top of that. It is a pretty sizable chunk of activity, and it is really new construction. It is a new area.
Mr. Jennissen: Has there been any movement on that, though, since we first raised this issue, let us say two or three years ago, I believe, or maybe even four--well, three years ago anyway? I believe that there was some survey work done, but I have really heard nothing since, so I do not know if anything is happening at the moment.
Mr. Findlay: The member asks if some work has been done. Yes, some basic survey work has been done. It has led to the number that I have given the member. I am sorry, but that $15 million, staff informed me, includes improvements to the existing stretch of the 75 kilometres, as well as building the new road.
The most probable alignment, I guess it would be fair to say--it is always subject to adjustments--has been determined, and we are targeting or looking at the year 2002 to have it operational. So the process is underway leading toward that time frame with those kinds of costs. So the alignment is there. Some survey is done. Some fairly significant preliminary activity has led to that number.
Mr. Jennissen: I just want to raise one other point. I am not sure whether the minister has even heard of this, but I had a talk with some people in South Indian Lake, and I was rather surprised by this. I do not think it is the general sentiment--I cannot say that for sure--but certainly it was raised, and that was if that road is to be built, would it not make more sense to head south to Thompson direct--you know, it is a much larger stretch--or in some way to connect in a south, I guess it would be a south-westerly direction to connect up with 391.
I think at any point we are looking at at least 80 or 100 kilometres, so I do not think that will ever be considered. But someone had raised that, and I said, well, you know, at some opportunity, maybe I will get a chance to raise that. Has that ever been advanced by anyone?
Mr. Findlay: The answer is no. The distance we are looking at here must be at least in excess of a hundred kilometres over undeveloped terrain. It would be horrendously expensive, just a mind-boggling figure. When you look at the map, you are really looking at three and a half inches on the map over pretty rugged terrain with a few rivers, and that means bridges. So the answer is no, it has not been raised, and it would be just an inconceivable cost.
Mr. Jennissen: I believe, in fact, the person I talked to thought it would be at least 80 kilometres, and he was aware it was a real long, long shot, but I guess his argument went that in the far future, we are going to have to build good roads anyway. If we are going to start building them, you know, straight lines, rather than all this around.
* (1700)
He was suggesting that instead of spending that money on the round road to get from South Bay to South Indian, maybe we should phase by phase over the next 25, 30 years be heading for Thompson. I do not know, but it was raised. I just wanted to let the minister know that it had been raised. I also know that it is prohibitively costly to probably consider it at this stage.
I was also going to ask the minister regarding some other communities and roads.
Mr. Findlay: I will just interject. If two or three mines were found in that area, it would open up the chances immensely.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister did not have a point of order.
Mr. Jennissen: Regarding the mines, boy, nobody needs them more than I need them around Leaf Rapids, because I certainly would like to see some mining activity in that particular region. It would also give us a better argument to fix up 391, I think, if we had a major mine up there, that is for sure. [interjection] Well, we certainly have the mileage. We just do not have the road covering.
With regard to Granville Lake and Black Sturgeon--well, let us take Granville Lake first of all. I realize it is probably unlikely they will ever have an all-weather road, but there had been some talk about a much better winter road and failing that a skidoo trail. I guess they failed even getting funding for cutting that trail, and they are a little upset about that. Is there any movement on that? It is a small community but they are isolated.
Mr. Findlay: The department has had some discussions about routing of a winter road. I cannot say that it has gone any further than that, what the route would be, what the cost would be, whether it connected going towards the southeast, towards 391 or towards the northeast towards Leaf Rapids. I would imagine there are conflicting points of view on which way it should go. There has been some discussion around that, but that is all.
Mr. Jennissen: Yes, just to add a little bit further to that. At one stage, I think the people from Granville Lake were hoping to use a road that was used by Hydro to bring in equipment. I think they felt later on that might not have been the best route they would have taken, but they were certainly--[interjection]
Yes, but they were willing to use it if they could sort of rehabilitate it somewhat, but I think their later plan was it would be much less costly. They were hoping for some funds to cut a skidoo trail which would be largely overland rather than over some of the more treacherous rivers and lakes, because there are currents underneath and skidoos go through them. It was not a large amount of money, but I know they had approached the Highways department. I do not know whatever became of that suggestion. They thought what would be at least a minimal connecting corridor for them would be that skidoo route.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, the staff here are not aware of any thought of a skidoo trail. It may be with other staff in the department; we will find out. It is a community of a few inhabitants, and there may be something that is possible, but we are not sure what it is.
Mr. Jennissen: Yes, it may well have been other staff of the department, but I do remember a Mr. David Baker made a presentation, and I did supply a map of that proposed route to somebody in the department. I honestly do not remember who that was at this point. It was a minimal amount of money.
Mr. Findlay: Would it have been through Natural Resources? It might have been. We will do some investigation and find out what is in government.
Mr. Jennissen: The minister brings up a good point. I thought it was the Department of Highways, but we can double-check that. It was not a large expenditure, but it would have certainly made life a lot easier for this community, which by the way is expecting water and sewage as well, so that is some good news for that community.
Going to another community and another road off 391, that is Black Sturgeon. It is a few kilometres. We have raised this issue before. It is a bit of a gray situation at the moment because Black Sturgeon is not technically a reserve yet, although they have voted overwhelmingly to form their own reserve. Apparently there are still some legal hangups. That of course brings up the other question, because South Indian Lake is technically not a reserve yet and, I believe, Granville Lake as well. I will have to double-check that. So, of course, once they have reserve status, then perhaps we could work something out in terms of joint funding, but we do not have that at the moment. In the case of Black Sturgeon, it is a very short distance at Hughes Lake, I believe it is. They wanted some support to upgrade an already existing road that a mining company had built for them, I believe, free of charge or a minimal charge, but the road is not up to the kind of conditions I think that the minister or I would like.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, the department is of the understanding that the trail is exceptionally substandard from the standpoint of anybody's conception of a road, and that we would be open to some discussion provided there were substantial federal dollars involved, because we do lots of cost-sharing agreements with the federal government on roads from main road to Indian reserves. Generally, a 70-30 cost-sharing formula is what we have struck and have done it to several locations, to several reserves, and other ones are ongoing right now. So if the federal partner was to come to the table, then the road would have to be built right from scratch in order to have an all-weather usable connector.
Mr. Jennissen: I wonder if I could ask the minister some questions, in a general vein again, on winter roads. I know this has been a particularly difficult winter for everybody as some of those roads never were completed. Some were and had a very short lifespan. Consequently, a lot of the supplies did not get where they were supposed to get. The federal government has been involved. I think the provincial government has certainly been involved to some degree. Nonetheless, it makes living very precarious in northern Manitoba.
I know my colleague from Rupertsland especially has spent a lot of time on this issue and has pointed out to me where in some places in northern Manitoba you are paying a dollar for a small potato because of the freight costs and so on. That is a concern we have in general, particularly this winter, but even more so a more specific concern, a regional one--and we have talked about this before--is the fact that on the Flin Flon side of the province, on the northwestern side, I guess it is, there are toll roads. That adds a certain cost to people living in the North because, even when winter roads are functional, supplies coming through have to reflect the costs of the toll, and some of those tolls are very, very high because the cost of road building is very, very high.
I have never understood why in other parts of the province we seem to be involved in cost-sharing or into some arrangement with winter road construction, but we do not appear to be, let us say, when we are talking Tadoule Lake or Brochet or Lac Brochet. That concerns me, obviously. It seems like we are working with different policies, or it may have just evolved, you know, happenstance over time, but it is a concern because if you are living in Tadoule Lake or Lac Brochet, you can bet your bottom dollar X cents extra on every litre of gasoline, and every litre of milk, and that can add up. Those people in many of those rural communities are already very poor, many of them living on social allowances, and it is quite a burden.
* (1710)
I am just wondering if, you know--and again I am asking the minister for more money when we are already strapped. I know it is not fair, but there has got to be some way to address this situation to make it at least more egalitarian right across the province, because there seems to be different rules being played out in different places. This, I am sure, historically has developed that way. Nonetheless, it makes it difficult, and it needs to be looked at, at some time.
Mr. Findlay: I think the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) probably said it right. That is just how things evolve. There is a bit of strange history behind it. Some of it is not all that explainable or defensible in terms of equality.
There is roughly 1,600 kilometres of winter road that we are involved with one way or the other, and 100 kilometres is 100 percent provincial. Two communities, I believe, had rail access, so the feds argued they were already involved in the rail side. This is going back a few years. There is 1,500 kilometres where we are involved in 50-50 cost-sharing. Then the third category of road is the one the member is talking about where contractors or communities put a road through. Then they collect tolls on it and pay for it that way. Certainly, we are open to discussion about how you equalize things so there is equality between communities, as long as the federal government is prepared to do the same. But it has just evolved. There is really, as I say, three categories. There is one big one, the 50-50 one, and then the one that is built by contractors and tolls are charged. There is not what you would call a standard uniform policy. It has just evolved over the course of time and different initiatives taken in different places to achieve a winter road to reduce the cost of getting goods in.
Mr. Jennissen: To give the minister an idea, perhaps, of cost, I remember--and I know that this particular person was not overly happy even sharing the information, so here I am putting it on the record. But this one particular store showed me what they paid for toll that particular year. I believe it was $110,000 or 120,000. Well over $100,000 anyway. Now, you are talking about a small and remote community. This is one store. Now I have no reason to believe that was all of it either, because that was in the middle of the winter when I arrived. So I am saying that cost is passed on to others.
It is going to be passed on to young mothers with babies, who have to buy milk. It is passed on to hunters and trappers, who have to put gasoline in their skidoos, in their snowmobiles. It is just an incredible cost. I am not blaming the people charging the toll, because I know how expensive it is to build those toll roads. I am just hoping that we can evolve or work out in the near future some mechanism that would make things a little more egalitarian, take some pressure off my constituents that are living there.
My next question is that the longest road, I believe, or certainly one of the longer ones would be the one to Tadoule Lake in terms of winter roads. That one has proven to be quite unsatisfactory over the lake system, because it seems to be pushed through very late usually. It does not last very long, so people have tried to look for alternative winter roads. I know that Ernie Bussidor out of Tadoule Lake has been very active on this, but I do not think he succeeded this year.
First of all, the minister can enlighten me. I believe they were allowed to build a winter road this year, were they not, and probably had attempted it? Is that correct, first of all?
Mr. Findlay: Yes.
Mr. Jennissen: Next question will be, if they did not succeed this year, they will undoubtedly be trying again, being northerners. If at first you do not succeed, you try, try again. Well, I guess it is also standard in the south. But would Ernie Bussidor and the people he is working with, who are trying to create this much more stable winter road link, would they qualify for any kind of support from the Department of Highways, from the government?
Mr. Findlay: This individual had held some discussion with the department late in the year, and we believe he did spend some money in a very unsuccessful kind of year. We are open to discussion as long as the federal partner is there. We would extend the public winter road to these communities, but not a lot of discussion has happened yet. We are open to it. Of course, you have to decide a route. What is the best route from the standpoint of prolonging the length of the winter road as long as possible? So we are open.
Mr. Jennissen: Discussing that particular winter road, I know there were some concerns from some quarters, including from the road builders, that when they were proposing various possible routes, one of those routes was going to run either close to or over what they call the Robertson Esker, which is home to a huge caribou herd, and there was some concern about that herd being at risk if there would be an easily accessible road.
I do not know. Is this addressed by this new proposal? Does it go around the Robertson Esker?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, for a new road like this, an environmental licence would have to be obtained, and that issue would be dealt with in that process. That is standard practice.
* (1720)
Mr. Jennissen: I guess we could talk about roads a long time. I was wondering if now we could maybe switch over to airports and to air safety and so on. First of all, I know the minister made reference to it in his opening remark, but perhaps he could reiterate it. After the tragic crash at Little Grand Rapids and also further at Wasagamack, but certainly Little Grand Rapids, there was a committee struck, I believe, involving Manitoba chiefs, I believe the Department of Highways, and perhaps others. Could the minister give us somewhat of a detailed report of where we are with that investigation? This is dealing with air.
Mr. Findlay: The accident at Little Grand Rapids happened on December 9, and I held a meeting on I believe it was December 19--December 18--in my office where we had representatives from northern communities, different chiefs, aircraft operators, and we struck a working group of membership of four chiefs from St. Theresa Point, Little Grand Rapids, Sayisi Dene, Wasagamack, two aircraft operators from Perimeter and Skyward, two individuals from Transport Canada, three individuals from Highways and one individual from Northern Affairs who met once in February, I believe, and once in March, February 17 and March 16, and then held a meeting in Thompson approximately a week ago, May 26 and 27, to hear input from communities.
Our department staff had sent letters to 35 different First Nations communities and mayors of community councils. That letter went out in early May, and I believe some nine or 10 presentations were made at that meeting. The working group will then make a report to me that will have some recommendations as to what are the strategically important things that we can do to improve safety at the airports.
Naturally, the bigger projects, like building an airport or lengthening an airport, we would attempt to get federal support through federal ACAP funding, Airport Capital Assistance Program, to do cost-sharing as we are currently doing with Wasagamack, which is 70-30 cost- shared. So there are short-term measures that can be done, and there will be longer-term measures. When the committee reports, I would expect within the month, we will start doing what we can do that is recommended by that committee.
So the review has gone on, and submissions have been made, and, clearly, we will do what we can.
Mr. Jennissen: Looking at the departmental Estimates of 1988 through '90, I believe it was, for Marine Services and Northern Airports, it roughly allocated about $5 million. That figure has not significantly budged in 10 years despite the heavy increase in traffic flow. So I wonder if the minister would comment on that.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, the member says $5 million has been a static figure. Yes, that is a lot better than $4 million in terms of meeting our needs up there. We have 22 airports which are all accredited by Transport Canada, so in their analysis they meet the standards that they put out. I think the member knows that about two or three years ago there were eight airports that were very little used. They are unmanned and they are unlicensed, but that is not part of the 22.
But we have used the $5 million to have the adequate level of staffing and upgrade and maintenance of those strips to what we think is a pretty reasonable standard. But I think out of the review that has taken place, there will be additional safety measures that are available today that may not have been available awhile ago, that can be utilized because, as we have all acknowledged, the number of aircraft movements up there is fairly substantive and increasing.
So the $5 million, generally speaking, we believe has been reasonably adequate, but we will do what we have to do.
Mr. Jennissen: Still, looking at some of the notes that I received on the--I believe it was the northern chiefs raised some points with the task force air safety held, I believe it was in Thompson on May 25. They still continue to talk about lack of modern navigational equipment in northern airports, absence of regular inspections, hazardous or unsafe conditions of the airstrips, inaccessibility of airports for health-related emergency and so on, including radars and beacons. So, obviously, there is still a long, long way to go.
I guess the minister is fully aware that when those airports were created--I think many of them were created under the Schreyer administration--they were basically, I believe--and I am just sort of going back on memory here--for medivacs, or medical reasons. Now they are being used for medical purposes, obviously, and medivacking people out, but for a lot of other purposes too. Some of those airports in the North are extremely busy, and it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out when you are landing that those strips are extremely short. Numerous pilots have told me that, with the newer planes and the faster planes, things are getting a little dicey, so safety considerations have to be a high priority, particularly in light of what happened at Little Grand Rapids, Wasagamack and other places.
Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
I could say that even myself--I travel a lot by airplane--I was a little bit astounded that one of our takeoffs was aborted in the Saab the other day. I should not say the other day. It was maybe several weeks ago. I talked with some other passengers. They said this happened before. Now those are fairly large planes, I believe, with a seating capacity of 25 or 30, but it is a frightening experience when you are at the point of takeoff and the pilot hits the brakes because some little red light went on. This has happened once to me, and I know it has happened before in that particular plane. I have seen planes disabled at other airports, so it is not just an abstract concept I am talking about.
It is obvious that there is a real need out there to upgrade airports. Certainly, safety considerations, if they are important for highways, they are even more important for airports. I thought I would just draw that to the minister's attention.
Mr. Findlay: Well, I appreciate the comments the member made. Yes, the airports were probably designed strictly for medivac activity, and now they are used by all kinds of planes for a lot of movements. It is not all that different than the idea of when the roads were built to a pioneer standard just for resource activity, and then, lo and behold, the citizens at large wanted to use the roads, so there are similarities in the two situations.
Airports are of designated lengths. I mean, let us say, they are built to whatever. Under Transport Canada rules, if the airport is not long enough for the plane you are flying, you are not allowed to land. Now I know that planes get bigger and faster and all that sort of thing, but if the airport does not accommodate the plane, by Transport Canada standards, it cannot, should not land there.
The member keeps mentioning Little Grand Rapids. The Transport Safety Board is certainly going through what happened there and will ultimately report, but I do not think he can blame the airport that day because there was terrible weather, and the pilot made a decision that was not a good one at the end of the day. It is unfortunate, but the weather is a problem. The weather is a big problem in the North a lot because there is so much water. Fog and mist can create hazardous conditions for aircraft movements, and there is always that human element factor. The plane has to meet certain standards; it has to be mechanically fit. The pilot has to meet certain standards. He has to be properly trained and be able to handle conditions, and he ultimately makes the decisions.
* (1730)
The member mentions somebody aborting a takeoff. That is probably the right decision. If there was something wrong in the instrument panels, that is nothing to do with the airport; that is to do with the aircraft operator. The pilot made the right decision.
So the Little Grand Rapids airstrip is probably a good example of a strip that was built in the wrong place. It was built there, as I recall my information, because there was a nursing station there, and then subsequently the nursing station moved across the water. The strip is 2,800 feet long, and it is water at each end, so you cannot extend it. So to have a longer strip, it has to be in a new location. That is expensive. These are some of the practical aspects of a difficult problem.
Other strips are in a situation where they can be extended. There are more aircraft movements, and they want to use bigger aircraft, and that generally means there should be longer strips.
So we will review what the working group reports to us and work with the federal government and the operators to be sure that we can do what we can to increase safety under the working conditions that exist.
Mr. Jennissen: I have a letter from Mr. John Briggs who is president of Ministic Air Ltd. dated December 3, 1997. Actually, it was sent to the minister. I will just quote bits and pieces from the letter. So the president of Ministic Air says: The days of mud runways and World War II aircraft are no longer acceptable. The aircraft have improved, but the runways remain at pioneering level.
In particular, Mr. Briggs mentions the airport at Island Lake which is one of remote Manitoba's busiest airports. He also asks for crushed limestone on that particular runway which would be a great advantage to that airport. He ends by saying: It should be noted that Manitoba and northern community airports at this time are serviced to a lower standard than other provinces we provide service to. The terminal buildings in Island Lake and some of the other northern airports are at best equivalent to Third World conditions and can no longer be tolerated.
So that was the letter from Mr. Briggs, and I just want the minister to comment on that.
Mr. Findlay: Well, I think he might have maybe abused the language a little bit there to say that we are a Third World country. As I said earlier, our airstrips are certified by Transport Canada, and if they were not meeting the standard they set across the country, they would not be certified. So we take that certification as meaning something significant.
At Island Lake, we use a good crushed granular material. It is not that we do not; we do. We accept that input as information and do what we can to meet the requirement, but if we were a Third World style of airports, they would not be certified and they would not be operating. We have 60,000 aircraft movements in these 22 airports. That is a significant amount of activity.
So, by and large, in most cases things are going respectably. They can always be better. I would be the first to acknowledge that. We want them to get better, and we will do what we can to improve them. But I will keep saying we need that federal partner who has a responsibility here to help us deal with these situations because air travel in the North, it is going to continue to go up. It is the way in and out that is convenient to fishing. In many cases, it is the only way. With more tourism and all that sort of thing, it is part of the economic activity of those communities now and in the future.
Mr. Jennissen: Just as an aside, though, I would want to point out to the minister, in a particular case like in Pukatawagan which does have an airport and also would like a road, that two years ago I believe I asked--and I may have, in fact, mentioned it last year in Estimates. I am not entirely sure of that, but I do know that two years ago 307 medivacs were flown out of Pukatawagan, and if you take into account the cost of one medivac and multiply that by 300 times, I think we could have built that road or at least a good chunk of it, so sometimes it is not a question of an airport or a road.
Sometimes I think the sensible thing would be to build a road. It comes out of a different pocket, but it is the same taxpayer. In this case, it would save us money in medivacs because a lot of those cases from Puk could have been taken to Flin Flon by ambulance. It is not that far away. So sometimes it is either/or, like fixing one would save us some money somewhere else. But that was an aside to the minister.
I would like to ask the minister also, with regard to the Winnipeg Free Press, Tuesday, May 26 article: Airline suing provincial government. I do not know if this is before the courts or not, but Perimeter Airlines is suing the provincial government because orange marker cones at the Gods River airport were replaced by evergreen trees, so that obviously cannot be the preferred safety mode.
Mr. Findlay: As I mentioned on more than one occasion today, the Transport Canada Guidelines certification, that sort of thing, and across Canada that is an accepted practice, according to Transport Canada, to use evergreens to mark airstrips because like a cone can get covered with snow, an evergreen does not. It is more visible, but in northern airports that is an acceptable practice that is recommended by Transport Canada to make them more markable, more visible, and less likely to be covered by a heavy snowstorm. The case is Perimeter has chosen to do what they are doing, so it is before the courts so we cannot say anything more.
Mr. Jennissen: I know the minister referenced the Wasagamack airport in his opening remark. Was it Wasagamack?
Mr. Findlay: Yes.
Mr. Jennissen: But I did not catch the details. Could he give me a little breakdown on the exact time lines again, how long before the planning phase is finished, and how long before the actual airport is assumed to be operational?
Mr. Findlay: As I mentioned to the member in my opening comments, the price tag is approximately $17 million for the road plus the airport. We are currently in a two-year phase of survey and design and obtaining of an environmental licence for the airport; $800,000 is the probable cost of that. Then it is projected that the construction period, which involves the airport plus 28 kilometres of road in virgin territory, would take about three years.
Not too long ago the federal government had written a letter saying that this project was no longer part of their budget, and then we had the 70-30 cost-sharing agreement with them. After some eyebrows were raised and some concern was expressed, we have got a subsequent letter from the federal government saying that it was now back as a budgeted item and they were going to participate with us this year and next year in the survey and design process.
* (1740)
There will be issues that will come up along the way in moving this project from conception to completion. That is why the five-year time frame has been suggested as what it will take. It is not a small undertaking. It is a very large undertaking and with a federal partner and a lot of potential issues around obtaining the land and with the road and the airport and all those sorts of things, that is the kind of time frame that is expected. It is five years.
Mr. Jennissen: I hate to get back to funding again, but it obviously seems to be an extremely important area. It appears to me that if we keep the funding at approximately the $5-million level, we are never going to get longer runways. We are never going to get paved runways. We are never going to get better navigational equipment.
So I guess I am asking, at what stage can we see some major injection of funds into airports that are just, I think, being overloaded in terms of flights, number of flights, airports that are no longer just used for medical evacuations but for hauling supplies? I just think the need to be upgraded--I know it costs a lot of money, but I do not see that in the budget I guess. Does the minister have a timeline where he can see that changing?
Mr. Findlay: The standard question I get from everybody is I want more money. The standard answer I hear from the public at large is do not dare touch me for more taxes. So where is the twain going to meet? I know there is need. We all know there is need. There are scarce resources. We have got to use them as astutely as we can and do the maximum we can with them. I will never leave this topic without saying: and we have got to have some federal commitment and participation on an ongoing basis. From the standpoint of airports on a national policy and decided to pull out. Leave it to the communities. Well, sooner or later that will have an impact on the province. They walk away and we are supposed to step in. We have less taxing capability. We do not have the rich tax base of southern Ontario to help us here, but through the federal government we do.
I understand the need, but I do not have any magic wand that I can say I can double the budget here or double it there. The members talked about roads, winter roads, airports, and only one section of the province. These demands come to me from all over the place.
So I am not pleading that it is an impossible position, but it is difficult to try to balance need and expectation with ability. Like I say to many people--and certainly even the City of Winnipeg wants more and more provincial participation on the roads, and so on it goes. If somebody is asking for something, you find out where the money is and I will do it. It comes right down to whether there is enough resources.
The member I am sure, in his own caucus, will know that it comes down to should we be promoting health today or more highways? You lose every time. Health will be the one that gets attention. We certainly try to use the health angle in terms of being sure these airports serve the medical needs. You will have heard me mention in my opening comments, be sure the airports can serve medical needs, because that is a connecting link that puts a greater sense of urgency to airports than not to use that connection. So, yes, we have to have them up to standard for safe and efficient use. We will work, just like with the roads, as best we can towards that. The sooner we get more federal participation, the faster we can move, and the better our whole system right across Canada will be. I am not arguing just for Manitoba. This is true in every province. Our system across Canada would be better and better and better.
But air is one of those things that if anything goes wrong, it is a big issue. We see some accidents that happen, not only in Manitoba but elsewhere, where the pilot makes some serious errors. That is another thing we have to constantly promote, to be sure that the equipment that they are flying and the pilots are appropriately trained and meet all the Transport Canada requirements before they get into the air.
Mr. Jennissen: Yes, and I know it is even difficult in the North to keep those airports that are really good airports, like Lynn Lake, operational because the federal government has basically walked away. I presume there is some transitional funding available there, but it is a community now of a thousand people. It used to be 3,500 people there. It is very difficult for them, with their tax base, to keep a large airport going. Yet, it seems to be a crying shame to see an airport of that quality underutilized or underserviced perhaps.
Also in Thompson I have some concerns. I think the minister is aware of them. Perhaps he can update me on this. It appeared to me it was last fall they had some problems with navigation at the Thompson airport, NavCan I believe. I do not know, I guess that problem must have been rectified, but it certainly did cause some problems. It may, in fact, have even cost the life of one young person that was being medivacked. We are not 100 percent sure on that, but that certainly is a problem that has arisen. Has that arisen because the federal government is walking away, basically, from airports? I am asking the minister.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, certainly Nav Canada has been set up to operate the navigational services across Canada. They are going through a process of cost recovery and on it goes. We do not think they have compromised safety. The problem the member identifies in Thompson, there was some issue with automatic flight instrumentation, anyway, and computerization, and it was not working as well as it was expected to. So there were some startup problems, and I think Transport Canada kept it manual for a longer period of time until all the computer-related glitches were worked out. But these are ongoing growing pains and the process is to be sure that we do not compromise safety in the process.
This has been a nation-wide process of Nav Canada taking over these responsibilities with a cost recovery agenda. I do not know of anybody that does not want to maximize safety at airports in any location in Canada.
Mr. Jennissen: I do know that a while ago, at least a year, perhaps two years, talking about privatization of The Pas Airport, there was question about whether, you know, talking about cost recovery, being able to afford those what I think are very important safety features. There was a question about whether that fire truck could stay at the airport, and to this day I do not know if it actually is there. Seems to me when you pull a fire truck or fire fighters away from a fairly major airport, that is pretty scary. Which also brings me to the fact that in no northern airport at the moment, I guess, in no remote, perhaps in no small airport anywhere, as far as I know, is there any security anymore. Like at one point at Flin Flon you would go through security. In Thompson, The Pas, that is not the case, and I have had people tell me there are a lot of absent-minded, mind you, not a lot, but some, you know, might have blasting caps in their pockets, all kinds of stuff that people should not be carrying, but there are no security checks.
On the one hand, I think it is great you do not have to go through the hassle, and most of the time nothing goes wrong anyway; but on the other hand, you could argue it is kind of scary to know that nobody checks anybody who walks onto the plane. Yes, you do save one person in terms of salary, but maybe in the long run, again, maybe we might be jeopardizing lives. I do not know, I am just raising the issue. I am sure the minister is aware of it.
* (1750)
Mr. Findlay: I guess one way to say it is we have never had security at our provincial airports in the North, and I am not aware that there was ever any incident that came because of it. That means we live in a reasonably secure society from that point of view. The idea of security became a really big issue internationally with certain events that happened, the hijacking of airplanes, and so on and so forth. Security is focused on those bigger airports where you are involved with long flights, international flights, where the potential of terrorist activity is real, but it is never perceived that it is a problem in the airports in northern Canada, for that matter, let alone northern Manitoba.
The cost to have the equipment there and the staffing to do that is really prohibitive, particularly when there is not an identified reason that it should be there. If you are going to spend scarce dollars, I think they are better spent on the runway or approach lights to the runway or that sort of thing. It can improve safety more than security in the small airports. I guess our track record of safety in that context is very good. I would just like to keep it that way.
I do not think we could afford to extend the security that we have at Winnipeg International to the North. There is no security even in Brandon. But if you come to Winnipeg to board a flight to Edmonton or anywhere else of any significance, you will go through security at Winnipeg before you get on those larger flights to go longer distances.
Mr. Jennissen: It struck me as odd, though, that at a time when people seem to be coming more security conscious, especially in the United States and in Europe, some fairly large airports like--I would guess I would certainly classify Thompson as a fairly good-sized airport--would move away from security. It was in place for years and years and years and, all of a sudden, when the rest of the world seems to be tightening security, we seem to be saying, well, it is really not needed, when we really do not know. It just struck me as odd timing.
Mr. Findlay: Clearly it was a federal airport, federal jurisdiction, federal decision. Be it good, bad, or indifferent, I just say our track record is pretty positive. We do not have incidents that lead to reasons to keep it there.
Mr. Jennissen: In this year's budget, I notice the minister had announced earlier as well in a press release, I believe, $300,000 for upgrading some of the small southern airports. Now, had this ever been done before?
Mr. Findlay: Up to this point, we have 100 percent funding for maintenance, operating, building, and every aspect of the 22 airports in the North, 100 percent provincial dollars, no municipal dollars there, no local community dollars, all ours. In the south there are approximately 30 airports. They were built over the course of time by various ways and means, sometimes with federal money, sometimes with a lot of municipal money. They are also very important for medical reasons, for medivac access to communities particularly that have hospitals or hospitals close by.
We felt that it was important that those infrastructures be maintained in those airports. We have discussed with the owners of those airports, which is generally a municipal government, or two or three municipal governments combined, for what challenges they face, because they do not have much of a revenue stream of any fashion. They are there for use, for citizens, for business use. Definitely as a province you want them there for medical use.
We proposed a very modest program where we are spending $5 million in the North. We are proposing to cost-share 50-50 with $300,000 on our side. If we have a grant to a particular airport for crack filling for $5,000, they have to have the matching $5,000. We had a lot of discussion with the municipal owners, and they believe that it will be a good initiative to give them extra dollars to maintain the basic infrastructure.
I gave priority 1, priority 2, priority 3 in my opening comments. Priority 1 is the landing surface and the taxiway. Those are the priorities. To maintain it, we have to do a capital upgrading, whether it is crack filling, or replacing, regrading the surface, whatever it is that will increase the length of life of that particular airport. One of the other basic criteria to be successful in applying is that it has to be a public airport, public access.
So that is the genesis of it. People have criticized me for spending $300,000 in the south when I spent $5 million in the North. They are not even comparable. I think it was important to help the municipalities invest in that infrastructure in their communities, and our reason is medical reasons.
Mr. Jennissen: Well, I do not wish to be unduly critical. I guess the point I wish to make though is that in many cases in the North those airports are absolutely crucial and essential survival instruments, if you like, whereas in the south they may not necessarily be. But, yes, you can make an argument that you have to be global in addressing upgrading airports. It is just that the North is so chronically in need of more funds that I personally would have preferred to see the $300,000 obviously go to northern airports, but I make no bones about the fact that I tend to be a little bit biased towards the North. Borealtropism or something, I am not sure, there must be a scientific name for that.
I do not know how much time we have, Mr. Minister, but could you give me a brief update, perhaps, on the ongoing saga with St. Andrews airport?
Mr. Findlay: I will quickly give a bit of a response and I might be able to give more beginning of the next day. When Transport Canada got involved in devolving the airport in Winnipeg, it was always Winnipeg/St. Andrews to be jointly devolved. They carried on with the Winnipeg Airport, and the St. Andrews sort of got left on the sidelines and discussions have gone on involving Winnipeg Airport, St. Andrews and Transport Canada. Whether they are completely dead at this moment, I would not be sure, but the R.M. and the Tenants Association at St. Andrews are in some element of discussion with the federal government to initially announce that they either had to have somebody else operate it or they would walk away.
We have had some involvement in discussion, but we are just not able to come to the table with dollars, so hopefully there will be an agreement arrived at eventually that will be good for St. Andrews. Just from an operational point of view, I think it is good that large aircraft uses Winnipeg primarily; and smaller aircraft have another airport some distance away, so that there is not a conflict of traffic. I just think that operationally makes sense to me, but Transport Canada is on a pretty hard and fast route, and at this point St. Andrews is still significantly up in the air as to what will eventually take place there.
Maybe I will give him some more response the next day after I have a chance to review what is current, but it did not resolve the way it was originally intended, that there would be a joint devolution from the federal government.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dyck): The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).