Manitoba Hansard — 9 April 1985 (Sitting 23, 32nd Legislature, 4th Session)

32-4-23

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 9 April, 1985. Time - 8:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees . MINISTERI AL STATEMENTS AND TABL ING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I have a report and a brief ministerial statement accompanying. Mr. Sp eaker, I beg leave to table the Report of the Manitoba Police Comm ission on the Gr enada Demonstration Inquir y. I'm tabling that report today.

This inquiry was authorized . . . MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Could the Page give a copy to the opposition? The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm today tabling the Grenada Demonstration Inqu iry Report. This inquiry was autho rized by Order-in-Council 1214. The report was delivered to the Atto rney-General on Thursda y, April 4, 1985 . The report contains 10 recommendations only - they'll be found on Page 70 - the first two of which are within the adminisrrative compe tence of the Att orney-General.

Th ese two recommendations are as follows: 1. that criminal charges which are outstanding against the seven demonstrators be stayed 2. that no further charges be laid against any person as a result of the activities at or near the United States Consulate on October 28, 1983. I'm acce pting these recommendations and have instructed Crown Attorneys accordingly. MR. SPEAKER: the Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Sp eaker , I simply want to acknowledge that the Attorney-General did make a commitment to the Chamber to have this report tabled as soon as possible, and he chose tonight to table that report. Our critic for the Attorney-General's department will have occasion in due course to make his response to it. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . . . Oral Questions . . . ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. 692 HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Health, that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MO TION presented and carrie d and the Ho use resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Su pply to be gr anted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair for the Department of Health; and the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Highways and Transportation. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - HIGHWAYS AND TR ANSPORTATION MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Committee, please come to order.

We are in committee, starting with Item No. 2.(c)

(1) Operations and Contracts, Salaries and Wages; 2.(c)

(2) Other Expenditures. The Honourable Min ister. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just briefly there was a question asked yesterday by the Member for Morris regarding the total maintenance gravel that was provided for the last year. In a couple of years, I'd given some figures regarding dollars for'83-84. I have the volumes for the last four years and I just want to read those into the record. 1982-83, it was 74,78 1 cubic yards;'83-84, it was 70,336 cubic yards;'84-85, it was 70,591; so there was an increase between 1983 and'84 of appr oximately 250 cubic yards,

whereas I'd indicated yesterday, it would seem that there was less maintenance gravel provided in' 84-85 as compared to'83-84, that is not the case. There was a slight increase in the total maintena nce gravel from' 83-84 to'84-85. This is for District 3, I shoul.d add, because this is the area that the Member for Morns is from and he was relating concerns that constituents were raising with him about the amount of gravel, and what this indicates is that there was more gravel put on in'8 4-85 than'83 -84. The pr ojections for 1985-86 is an incr ease substantially to 81 ,088.

We'd indicated yesterday that surface material was one of the major areas of increase under our budget of maintenance increase for that

section of the budget for this year. So there's a substantial increase from 70,591 up to 81 ,088 planned for that district. I mention one other point. The Member for Gladstone asked about PR 340 and its classification for gravel purposes and I indicated that I thought it was a Class 4 road. That's correct. The standard was 20 draggings per season under that classification. In the area that she referred to through the R.M. of South Cypress, it indeed received 20 draggings over

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 the'84-85 summer season. So, it received the num ber specified under that classification. That's not to say that it was sufficient for that particular situation if there were some unusual problems, but it was dragged the same number as is called for under the Class 4 category. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minne dosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Yes, I would thank the Minister for those figures on the increase in the gravel. Will the same mileage be covered by that increased amount of gravel, or will they be doing more miles and spreading the gravel thinner? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: I'd have to get the exact figures, but it would be approximately the same because we haven't added any signif icant number of miles of road in that particular area this past year. MR. D. BLAKE: You've described the amount of gravel per mile as normally spread on surface gravel? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, so that we would be covering the same number of miles, only adding additional gravel to those same number of miles. So it's just about consistent from one year to the next. It means, Mr. Chairman, that each mile will be receiving slightly more than it did the previous year. That's what it means. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 2.(c)( 1) - the Member for Min nedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: I wonder, under this item ( 1) and (2), if the Minister can just give us a brief idea of what is covered this section, Operations and Cont racts. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Un der the area of Other Expenditur es, which I would anticipate is the requested information other than Salaries and Wages under the first section, we're dealing with a number of areas of membership and involvement by the department.

I raised yesterday the matter of, for example, the RTAC Study on weights and measures that was undertaken by RTAC, the province is contributing $40,000 to that under this section, under the RTAC Council on Research; another $10,700, Roads and Transportation Association of Canada; our membership, 13,200; the Western Association of Canadian Highway Officials, $1 ,000; the Manitoba Good Roads Asso ciation, $1 ,500; Transportation Research Board, $800; American Public Works Association, $100, so those are some of the major studies.

As well, the new Telidon project is budgeted through here, that I mentioned in my opening remarks at $35,000.00. The road map is included under this

section and vehicle permits are issued annually under this section; 150 formal contracts and 180 construction orders are processed through this section. MR. D. BLAKE: The vehicle permits, Mr. Minister, these are the permits issued for the daily permits, permits of that nature - for heavy loads during restricted road conditions, things of that nature? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, they'r e issued by this

section - 19,000 overweight and ove rdimensiona l vehicle permits are issued annually by this section. 693 MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(c)(1) -p ass; 2.(c)(2)- pass. 2.(d)(1) , 2.(d)(2), Bridges and Structures: Salaries, Other Expenditures - the Member for Minn edosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Yes, this covers the bridge design

section of the department? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. D. BLAKE : Any other functions under this particular section, Mr. Chairman? HON. J. PLOHMAN: It also includes a large number of bridges that are maintained and repaired and some that are replaced under this - (Interjection) - Well, we're dealing with (1) and (2), Mr . Chairman, Other Expenditur es under the Bridges and Structures. This is the staffing part. Primarily the design work that was mentioned by the honourable member, supervision of the repair and maintenance of approximately 2,800 bridges in the high way system under this section; the rating for the truck load capacity of the bridges that is done through this

section as well; engineering advice on hydraulic adequacy of culverts and drainage ditches in response to requests from district engi neers is provided through this area as well; it keeps construction cost records of bridges for the purpose of budgeting, for the construction of future bridges and culverts - that kind of activity - monitoring and in specting appr oxi mately 2, 83 0 bridges in the high way and provincial road systems and maintaining and updating inventory records and plans of approximately 6,000 bridges existing in the province, utilizing their techn ical staff. MR. D.

BLAKE: Any new bridges being contemplated, would they be included in this section? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, they would be under the construction program, under our highway construction. The design work will be done through this

section or through private consultants if it's a major development. Primarily the majority of them, of course, are done through this section, the design work, but they're actually constructed so the money flows under our construction budget. MR. D. BLAKE: So under Planning and Design we could find out which bridges are being contemplated? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes. MR. D. BLAKE: Yes, okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? 2.(d)(1 )- pass; 2.(d)(2)- pass. 2.(e)

(1) Traffic Inspections, Salaries and Wages, 2.(e)

(2) Other Expenditures - the Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Yes, under this section, Mr. Chairman, I think over the past few years I've had as many calls under this

section as I had under any other department of government. I've talked to the Minister on it and I think a great num ber of those calls could probably be eliminated if the traffic inspectors were to take a short

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 course - the Dale Carnegie course on how to win !rinds and influence people. I gather from the truckers who have talked to me that it's as much attitude and maybe Mickey Mouse items that they'r e being stopped for and checked for. When you're checked, being in business, trying to get hay to starving animals or trying to get various other farm products moved, when you'r e stopped once or twice in 26 miles, it does become a bit of a problem to them although I realize there are those out there that will get away with whatever the traffic will bear and then some if they're not checked.

But that is an area where I have had quite a large num ber of compla in ts. I don't kno w whether the inspectors are a little overzealous or whether there are one or two that maybe operate a little differently than others, but that area seems to generate quite a num ber of them. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the concern that's raised and the fact that I have also had a number of complaints regarding this from many different sections of the province.

I believe it is an area that we are addressing in the department, one that is recogniz ed as a sensitive area when dealing with the public and the need for improving the public relations skills when dealing with people and providing a much needed service out there, but certainly doing it in a way that people can understand. They're out there to do a job and to apply it as fairly as possible with some flexibility, obviously.

We are looking at sending inspectors to the RCMP Training School in Regina for a course that they offer there, as well as some in-house training seminars to upg rade the skills in that particular area. So we recognize that area as being sensitive and are. taking steps to remedy it. MR. D.

BLAKE: As I say, I realize it's a necessary function, but on short hauls where from the field to the elevator there may be five miles of highway that the farmer has to travel, and when he's hauling grain in the fall, he's not in the best frame of mind when he's stopped half way to town with a load when the combine is full and waiting for that truck to get back to take another load in. That has happened on occasion and those inspections, un less there was a flagrant abuse of the system, I think they maybe could be overlooked. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Portage. MR. L. HYDE: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to express my feelings towards this question that's been brought before you tonight and, to the Minister, realizing probably that some of the inspectors probably want to expound on their duties. An yway, in that area north and east of Portage where there is trucker after trucker making his living hauling gravel from short haul pits, and it's been brought to my attention where they've been stopped in a matter of just a few miles. The different inspectors seem to delight in making it sort of miserable, you might say, for these people having to make a living hauling gravel in short hauls.

It is a nasty situation. I know it has created ill feelings amongst both the truckers and, I'm sure, the inspectors to realize 694 th at pr obably th ey could turn their backs - (Interjection) - on some of it ... A MEMBER: We used to say they're bucking for their hooks. MR. L. HYDE: They're bucking, yes. We used to say that in the army, didn' t we? They're bucking for their hooks. I'm glad that you realize, Mr. Min ister, that probably some of the inspectors are a little bit anxious on this particular job of theirs. That is all that I would like to make mention of at this time. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Just on that, Mr.

Chairman, of course we all have to realize that inspectors do have a job to do and I certainly want to support them in that effort. However, as has been indicated there is a place for warnings in certain situations and some flexibility in terms of the warning systems as opposed to issuing tickets; but again if it's an abuse that is potentially harmful to the roads they have to exercise their authority without harassing people.

There's a fine line there and all of those things involve judgments and skills that perhaps have to be gained, not only through experience but also through special training, which is why we were addressing it from that angle. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: If the Minister might just comment, we discussed one problem with the amount of feed that was hauled this year with the bale loads where you made a statement and altered the regulations to allow the same loads as they were hauling in Alberta and Saskatchewan, the double-tier load.

I wonder if the Min ister might comment on if tha t worked satisfactorily or if there were complaints. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I'm informed that we didn't receive any complaints under that new system or under the new provisions that were put in place. There may have been some locally but we did not receive any of those complaints, if there were any. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(eX 1)- pass; 2.(eX2)- pass. 2.(fX 1) District Offices: Salaries and Wages; 2.(fX2) Other Expenditures - the Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: I think there may be some discussion here, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know what the Minister might tell us under the District Offices. If he can enlarge on the situation that in District 3, I suppose it is, the Carman area or if he could comment further on any other district problems that he may be aware of. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I'm not aware of any special problems.

I know that the district engine ers meet annually or semi-annually with senior management to discuss consistency in application of procedures for throughout the province, seminars, where they discuss concerns that they may have and these are addressed with the Deputy Mini ster and the directors from various sections of the department in discussion with the engi neers, and that process seems to work well.

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 Insofar as the specific Carman situation, there's been no further formal developments in terms if charges are being laid in connection with the allegations that were made there. We're informed that they're imminent, the laying of charges, and the matter will then be in the hands of the RCMP to proceed with those charges.

In the meantime of course, we discussed last evening I guess, there is an internal investigation with the Provincial Auditor and procedures that are in place within the department, the Internal Auditor and the Provincial Auditor, together, and we expect to have their report within a week or so. And recommendations that will be made there will certainly be consi dered very seriously and action taken on those recommendations. MR. D. BLAKE: In the meantime the men involved, they're under suspension - with or without salary? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: There's no decision on that matter in terms of whether it's with or without salary at this point. It's with salary at the present time, they've been suspended pend in g the outcome of in ternal investigation, and then the RCMP investigation, of course, but our own investigation as well. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dealing with the same subject matter, can the Minister indicate to the committee where this first came to his attention? Was it from the Provincial Auditor, or was it from an internal audit of your department?

When was the Minister first made aware of it? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well I indicated that all in a press statement which I don't have here today. I think it was March 12th when I was first informed by the Attorney General's Department that there were some allegations being made, and immediately I met with the Attorney General and his staff. From there on the investigation was initiated and, at the time of the arrest, we took immediate action with regard to the suspensions. I believe that was about one week to 10 days after the initial information came to our attention the initial arrests were made. MR. H.

GRAHAM: At that particular time there had been no concern expressed by your own internal audit, or by the Provincial Auditor, is that correct? HON. J. PLOHMAN: No there has been never any concern expressed in that area prior to that particular time. It's an area that is, I guess, very difficult to pick up by audit. MR. H. GRAHAM: I believe earlier the Minister indicated in a previous

section that there had been one extra person added to your internal audit staff. Does the Min ister think that the addition of an extra person to the internal audit staff will probably be sufficient to be an added preventative for something of this occurring again? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr . Chairman, I want to inform the members, first of all, that the matter of 695 Internal Auditors first appeared in the Estimates last year.

That was the first time that the department indeed had an Internal Auditor, so that was a forward-looking step in terms of addressing procedures and suggesting ways to management to make them more efficient throughout the department, and of course we've added support staff this year for that lnternal Auditor. That person will be, over a period of years, looking at various areas of the department to make recommendations to management as to how procedures that are in place can be altered or improved upon and made more efficient, and so on. So that is the major function of the Internal Auditor.

In this situation we're asking the Internal Auditor, along with the Provincial Auditor, to undertake a specific task as a result of the allegations that have been drawn to our attention. MR. H. GRAHAM: I thank the Mi nister for that explanation. I would now like to deal with the actual staffing of district offices and the position of district engineers. I would like to ask the Min ister, if a person is appointed a district eng ineer, does he stay in that district office as the district engineer until such time as he receives a promotion? Or is there a policy of moving engineers from time to time? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, it is true that the num ber of district engi neers have been in one location for a considerable period of time. I believe th at previously at certain times there was a policy of rotating the district engi neers from one district to anoth er, however tha t was very costly and I believe was discontinued some time ago in the early Seventies. So the district engineers have been in place for many years and of course one of the ways that they wouldn't move is if there was an opportunity for a promotion.

There are some openings in the department at the present time both because of reorganization within the department and retirements that would allow for some changes to take place and we expect that there may be some changes and would like to see some rotation or some movement there in the coming year. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: I just have a couple of questions here.

On the district level, on the hiring of employees - I don't know what level they would be, probably below the foreman or supervisory level in the district - is that left up to the district with the approval of the district engine er to hire and to hire locally wherever a suitable employee can be located? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, the permanent staff are not hired in that way, but seasonal employees are usually under the jurisdiction of t he district. MR. D. BLAKE : Permanent emplo yees would go through the normal Civil Service Commission posted positions? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Yes, either internally or externally to the public. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(f)( 1)- pass; 2.(f)(2) pass.

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 2.(g)

(1) Other Jurisdictions: Gross Expenditu res; 2(g)

(2) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations - the Member for Min nedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Yes I wonder if the Minister might just give us a brief outline of the function of this particular section? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That is a totally recov erable section. The department pro vides specialized services to other government departments and to other jurisdictions such as cities, towns and villages, mun icipalities, local government districts and also in certain instances, to private parties.

It constructs roads for Manitoba Hydro in Northern Manitoba, for example, and the receipts for these services to other government departments are credited back to this appropriation, while receipts for services provided to other jurisdictions are credited to general revenue, but they're all fully recoverable. MR. D. BLAKE: There still remains a charge to the department for a portion of it? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes.

That's right, in terms of the net expenditure, the member can see the dif ference there and those represent that work done outside of the government departments, and therefore would not come back as a recovery into the department but would go into general revenue. MR. D. BLAKE: Why would that not all come back to the department? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Because of the Finance Department's rules and policy that all revenue obtained from external sources goes through the Department of Finance. That works in all departments where there's revenue generated from external sources.

It goes back through the Department of Finance. That's the policy that's in place. MR. D. BLAKE: This is not really generated revenue. It's just a recovery of costs. They're stealing $2 million out of your budget. HON. J. PI.OHMAN: But there's no net loss to the province and that's . MR. D. BLAKE: That's right, that's a loss to the Highways Department. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, if you can call it that. It's been there and it changes from year to year but we budget for those situations.

One of the major ones was the funding for the Minago River Causeway and Bridge at $1.3 million under this section, it was recoverable from the Department of Northern Affairs; and the construction of two bridges over Cooks Creek Diversion on PR 207 which was recoverable from the Department of Natural Resources, that's within the recoverable part, the $3.665 million, as budgeted for 1985-86. And there were other works done for these external agencies. Yes, it's true that we have to provide a budget for it and we get no credit for it.

It goes back to the 696 Department of Finance and that's one of the areas that we have to live with. MR. D. BLAKE: That would pretty near fix up my 250, from 16 north to 45. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Also, Mr. Chairman, the Air Am bulance Program, for example, will be under this

section as a fully recoverable similar type of situation but not under this section. MR. D. BLAKE: Your operating costs could almost - well no I guess your total operating cost wouldn't be recovered - you would have the pilots' wages and things of that nature that would be charged the Air Division? HON. J. PLOHMAN: No, it would all be charged, all the costs attributed to that. Yes, it's the total costs of the Air Ambulance Program budgeted for, paid out and the monies recovered through the general revenue. MR. D.

BLAKE: I can understand what's happening but as I said earlier, you' re getting fleeced out of some money here out of the Highways Department and god knows we're scraping hard enough now to get a few dollars in there. Could we maybe assist the Minister in making a concerted effort in the House when we get to the Finance Minister's Estimates to be a little more fair with the Highways Department and with your co-operation, Mr. Minister, maybe we can . . . HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well you won't have any argument from us and the staff here is very supportive. They're putting in their votes. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 2.(g)( 1)- pass; 2.(g)(2)- pass. Resolution No. 92: Resolved that there be gr anted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $66,800,500 for Hig hways and Transporta tion, Operations and Maintenance for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1986- pass. We are now on Item No. 3.(a)

(1) Planning and Design and Land Surveys, Planning and Design: Salaries and Wages; 3.(a)

(2) Other Expenditures - the Member for Min nedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I guess this is the area where we might get an update from the Mini ster on the situation relative to the proposed bridge at Selkirk. HON. J. PL OHMAN: That's a big area, maybe the members would like to ask specific questions. I can say that the planning for the bridge is proceeding and an application was made just recently to the Navigable Waters Board for permission to construct the bridge at that location and that height, and we can get into the details of that.

I might point out that we were just informed today that the interim app roval has been granted by The Navigable Waters Act Board. MR. D. BLAKE: What height? HON. J. PLOHMAN: At 60 feet, and we're expecting written confirmation on that in the very near future, so

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 there are no obstacles with regard to that. I think the height that has been chosen meets clearly all of the concerns by individuals and groups that were raised with us and allows for some future planning expansion in that area, particularly as regards the sail boat industry, the hig hest now being in the neighbourhood of 53 feet; and the federal dredge that works on that river as well requiring a 53 foot clearance, so there will be an allowance there of about seven feet.

So all of those concerns have been addressed in the application and it seems that the application has been successful in that the board has given interim appro val to the application. MR. D. BLAKE: That is on the site location where the test hole drilling was done this winter, on the ice, the position North of Selkirk? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, there were a number of locations that were considered North of Selkirk, and the one that the testing was done on is the same location in the St. Peter's corridor area that was chosen and the one where the testing was done this past winter. MR. D.

BLAKE: Could the Minister give us the results of the test drilling that was done, and do they differ from the projections that they had earlier on the cost of the bridge? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I don't believe that the testing results had an impact on the cost of the bridge.

The difference in the projected cost of the bridge is primarily in the length of it because of the increased height, and the increased height that was needed from original designs that were put forward simply for public input in the open house that was held in the Selkirk area, preliminary designs based on approximate height of, say, the bridge over, and the perimeter highway over the Red River, similar height, 38 feet or so.

It was used as an initial starting point for design and projections and then the open house was held to determine whether there was any special considerations that had to be taken into account for the bridge North of Selkirk. So there was an increase as a result of that additional height and, therefore, length of the bridge, but I don't believe the subsoil, subterranean testing that was done showed up anything negative that would add to the costs. MR. D.

BLAKE: Could the Minister give us an indication of what the additional height, what added cost that is going to require and what is now the total projected cost of the bridge? HON. J. PLOHMAN: The total route, including six miles of road and the bridge is projected at $13,954,000.00. MR. D. BLAKE: Do those costs include the acquisition of land required, Mr. Chairman? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's includes approximately, I guess, three quarters of a million dollars for land acquisition. MR. D.

BLAKE: Could the Minister tell me now where the acquisition of the required land, where does it stand? 697 HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, a legal survey is being prepared , which is requir ed under our expropriation pr ocedures, and once it has been prepared and registered the expropriation procedures will continue. I believe it will take in the neighbourho od of six months to comple te thos e procedures for acquisition.

There may be some negotiations done with some of the land owners, as well, in advance if agreements can be reached, but the expropriation procedures have to proceed at any rate under the new system that we have for multiple acquisition. MR. D. BLAKE: Could the Minister indicate to the committee what objections he has encountered from the local landowners in connection with the acquisition of the various parcels of property necessary? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I don't think we've got to the stage yet that there would be objections raised.

Once they've been served notice of the expropriation they will have an opportunity to raise specific objections, but that has not been reached yet. The legal survey is just being prepared at this time. MR. D. BLAKE: The notices of expropriation have not gone out to the land owners. HON. J. PLOHMAN: No, they haven 't, at this point. MR. D. BLAKE: Who will be setting the price of the various parcels of land? Will this be the Lands Acquisition Branch; will they be putting the price on the property? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: The procedu res involve the Land Value Appraisal Commission which established the land values under this kind of expropriation. MR. D. BLAKE: What redress does a land owner have if he's not satisfied with the value put on by the Land Value Appr aisal Committee? HON. J. PLOHMAN: The individual can appeal to the courts for any decision made with regard to the value. The government cannot, but the individual who's being exprop riated can. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Portage. MR. L. HYDE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to remark on this here Planning and Designing.

First, before I get into it, I wonder if it would be proper to remark about the Saskatchewan Avenue reconstruction project in Portage at this time. I might say that I'm sure you were aware that we ran into some bad weather last fall and it drew it to a sudden closure just about three weeks too soon in the fall of the year. If we'd had another three weeks, we'd have had it pretty well completed. I might say that the general acceptance of it all is very favourable. The citizens are quite pleased with the project and the way the overall improvement that's going to be made.

It is long overdue, as I've said so many times over the last few years. I have worked hard

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 for that project to begin and it is certainly going to be a big improvement to the Main Street of Portage la Prairie. I'm sure that the businessmen, after the job is completed, they will certainly look forward to probably improving some of their storefronts and get right on the bandwagon. I ha ve before me, Mr. Ch airman, some correspondence that the Minister has had from a Mr. Des Drain. The original letter went to Charlie Mayer a Memb er of Parliament for Portage-Marquette and consequently was handed on to me. Mr.

Drain is quite concerned about the planning of a new road from the by-pass on 240 over the river where it joins into 33 1. There was property purchased apparently some 12 years ago to improve this new bridge that is proposed. As I understand it, at that time there was really no complaint at all because the present road, the way it is now, it's winding through quite a large residential area. Incidentally, I believe there was land purchased to avoid going through that particular residential area and meet, then there would be the construction of a new bridge more or less at the site of the present bridge.

But it has been suggested that the government is now considering a third route to cross the river and it is going to link up more or less with the direct approach to the Air Force Station on 331. Mr. Chairman, if this proposal was to go through, it's going to disrupt this here particular family farm there - it's a small farm to start with but a very expensive type of farmland - and as you know in that particular area it's mainly for specializing in vegetables and that and it's quite a costly land. But anyway this Mr.

Drain is very concerned that you will be splitting his farm - a small farm as I've mentioned - splitting it directly in half, going right through this man's property with the new proposed road. • We have nothing against progress but, my goodness, I just question whether the decision to disrupt this expensive farm operation when land has already been purch ased by the government to avoid the twisty, turning route that is pres ently in opera tion. I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, if there's any chance of a government taking some reconsideration on their proposed plan on that. How far is it advanced, that planning? HON.

J. PLOHMAN: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I recently met with the 240 Associat ion and I believe th e alternative the member is relating here is causing the concern for this Mr. Drain; and is one that was put forward by that association and is not one that is at the stage where it could be considered favoured by the department at this time or not, no. So it's rather premature to raise those specific concerns. It's quite far from getting to the stage where the concern that the member is raising would actually be realized. There is still work to be done on a location study and design.

It's not finalized to date at all. There's been no acquisition to this point of land in that area. So that's all down the road yet. MR. L. HYDE: Mr. Chairman, as it was described to me, there are three routes, and the No. 3 route is the newest proposed route. If that should go through, as 698 I understand, it will not link up with 240. So I don't understand why people want to even consider taking the third route because it's not going to join up with 240. There's going to be a considerable change that has to be made in order to tie into 240.

There's got to be a reason, I have no doubt, but you're going to disrupt ... HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, it was an oversight that I didn't invite the honourable member to attend that meeting. Perhaps he would have been able to receive the same brief and would have been able to study it and maybe meet with the individuals involved but that is their position. They would like to see the entrance coming in through the west side - as a west side entrance - more to Portage than on the east and through the existing 240.

So they have a completely different concept that they're proposing and one that has just been received only a few weeks ago in a meeting. So I haven't received a report from the department on whether that is feasible or desirable in any way. MR. L. HYDE: Mr. Chairman, would it be possible then that the pro posed plan, would it be available for me to view that at the District Office in Portage la Prairie? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: I don't think there's any problem with the member meeting with the district engi neer to discuss the current status of those plans if he so wishes, but the precise option that is being referred to by the Member for Portage la Prairie is one that has been put forward by an outside source, not one that has been actively considered within the department. That's my understanding. So he would not see plans for that option at all. MR. L. HYDE: At this time. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Right. MR. L. HYDE: Okay, thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to discuss with the Minister and the department a problem that has been with the department for some years, namely, the proposed extension of Provincial Trunk Highway No. 67 in the vicinity of Stonewall. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that by-passes, if you can call them such, have a long history of cont roversy for the Department of Highways and the department has to respond and recognize the needs of a modern highway system.

It has to respond to the legitimate demands of the travelling public, particularly the commercial trucking industry, to route traffic around our cities and towns, and often this creates concerns by the commun ities involved. Usually the Chambers of Comme rce and others are concerned about potential business loss when this occurs, and over the years, the question of the department's activity in this field, you know are long and tortuous - the Portage la Prairie by-pass, Min nedosa by-pass, Brandon. I understand another by-pass is being considered in Brandon because of current buildup.

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 I even recall a particular frustration, Mr. Min ister, that occurred in another community called Dauphin that I did my best, at two kicks at the kitty, to build a by pass around, it never quite succeeded, Mr. Minister. A MEMBER: Some of us are luckier. MR. H. ENNS: I use this as a

preamble because I simply don't understand what the department is up to with respect to the extension that's being proposed for Provincial Trunk Highway 67 at Stonewall. You have a situation, Mr. Minister, where the natural extension is to proceed along what is commonly referred to as the south route which, in my estimation, in my recollection, was indeed original highway plans. But even if that isn't the case, but certainly today's situation is such tha t the south route offers virtually no impediment to the department in its orderly planning for a modern major trunk highway, No. 67.

You have, for instance, in the first three miles on the south route only two homes; other homes along that route are well set back, well over 200 feet from the proposed route. Hydro posts, way back, were set back to facilitate future and anticipated high way demands on that route. Of course, Mr. Min ister, I don't call that a by-pass, it's a coincidence that 67 happens to border so close to the southern part of that town. I don't think that this needs to be a planned by-pass on the part of the Department of Highways, but merely an extension of a very natural course for a major trunk highway to travel.

My unde rstan ding, though, is - and I find this un believable because, you know, I have been tutored by people like Bryan Johnston in the Planning Division, and I know how difficult it sometimes is to have our planners understand that people use roads, too, from time to time, and that he has a legitimate concern about, if you're building a modern highway, how to build it safely.

So, why your department at this time would want to reverse that decade-long practice by the department in avoiding built-up areas in communities for a major trunk highway, and route the proposed extension of No. 67 on the north route which, when you start from Provincial Trunk Highway No. 7, in the first half mile has 15 driveways to contend with, a hill that obscures the intersection of that important Highway No. 7. Most of the homes in the area are built approximately 135 feet from the highway, a good 100 feet closer than those on the south road.

As you travel west toward Stonewall, the second mile has a large trailer court - the first of one, there's another trailer court to come - with a great number of vehicles entering the highway. Then you come to the cemetery, and people die in Stonewall, in my constituency it's used. HON. J. PLOHMAN: It's no reflection on the MLA. MR. H. ENNS: Then you come to a num ber of commercial buildings. I want the Minister to understand, I want the committee to understand, the Department of Highways is now deliberately routing a major trunk high way into a commun ity.

Just past there, you get onto 4th Street, you're now in Stonewall. We've now succeeded in bringing a major trunk high way into Stonewall proper where you'r e met 699 with the first bulk oil station. Then you require, on 4th Street, two 90 degree turns for our semi-trailers to take. Then we have managed to skilfully route all this heavy traffic to where most school buses cong regate and funnel to service the three schools in Stonewall. We are now in beautiful downtown Stonewall.

On 4th Street, you have a number of !louses that abut right to the proposed extension of Provincial Trunk Highway 67; cars back onto the proposed highway. What I ask the planners is how they plan to cope with it? Children use it as a playground, as a matter of fact, Mr. Min ister. We're now in downtown Stonewall where this trunk high way is going to have to cope with eight east-west streets and a railway track that have to enter onto this provincial trunk highway. Then we have a further traffic hazard; we have a grain elevator there - and I' ve travelled by there often.

The grain trucks are lined up waiting for delivery, but they will be accommodated on this improved provincial trunk highway, along with two more bulk stations on opposite sides of the road. Two blocks south, after you get past the grain trucks waiting to dump their grain, we have the second trailer court on this proposed route. Mr. Minister, you're talking about having to impose at least a 50 kilometre speed limit on Provincial Trunk Highway No. 67 if this extension proceeds.

You simply can't have semi-trailers and heavy com mercial traffic and travelling pu blic speed ing through that area at acceptable provincial trunk highway speeds. My question to the Minister is, why is this being done? I would like not to think th at the department is blackmailing the Town of Stonewall - and I use that word advisedly - with the suggestion that they either accept this routing or they lose their present access, which is referred to the three-mile

section of road that has connected and has provided access from No. 7 for many years. I don't know who built it, it might have been certainly a predecessor of mine, Mr. Bobby Bend, perhaps in the '50s, or even before that. Stonewall is a major commun ity. Certainly it deserves an access as has been provided by the department to all or to most communit ies, at least the columm 600 series or some such designation.

My understanding is that the council and the mayor of the Town of Stonewall have understandably bowed to some pressure from the department when threatened with the fact that the department, if they build it on the south road where the highway should go, then the town will have to take over the responsibility of its present access route which is a considerable imposition to ratepayers and taxpayers of the Town of Stonewall.

Faced with those circumstances, it does not particularly surprise me that the mayor and the council have ind icated to the Mi ni ster th at th ey su ppor t this un believable diversion of a major trunk highway into downtown Stonewall. You know, Mr. Minister, it would be like suggesting that the department close off the Portage by-pass and out all Trans-Canada Highway through Saskatchewan Avenue, now that Saskatchewan Avenue is being updated and improved, and surely that is not proper high way planning. I would ask the Min ister and the department to very seriously reconsider this position.

I know that without question by far the larger number of people that will be using the roads have indicated to the Minister and

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 the department by petitions, including the R.M. of Rockwood, and I suggest under different circumstances the Town of Stonewall and the mayor of Stonewall would also request the department when the department feels it's necessary - and I'm not particularly convinced that it's necessary at this point - to proceed with a natural extension of 67 on the south road and not to hold the Town of Stonewall up to ransom saying that it's either/ or because, Mr. Min ister, it simply does not make sense to route a major trunk highway through that torturous route that I just described. Mr.

Min ister, I am not making up any stories. The Minister has this brief that I am quoting from before him. It was a well-planned brief by concerned citizens. Removing myself for a moment from the parochial interest that I obviously have, I am well aware the department has expended some funds, substantial funds, into accommodating a major intersection at what I call the existing three-mile access road to Stonewall at the new facility, the divided hig hway, Highway No. 7. But surely I am also aware that the hig hway planners can't live with the situation that I described.

They will obviously ha ve to exprop riate a great deal mor e property. They will obviously have to, five years from now, 10 years from now, or whenever it is, find an alternate routing for 67 at considerable public expense. I am suggesting to the Minister as seriously as I can, and sincerely as I can, that the propo sed extension of Highway No. 67 as currently planned, as I am given to unde rstand, is not the wisest course of action to follow. I would appreciate hearing from the Minister and his advisers as to the reasons for choosing this particular route.

I would like to also hear how the department proposes to deal with some of the problems associated with that route, the two 90-deg ree angled turn s;, th e accommoda tion of the many accesses now being serviced by that route and whether or not if under further consideration the dep artment would no t reconsider what I judge to be their original plans, which were in my judgment sound, to allow the trunk highway to naturally extend and join up with the new four-lane facility on what is known as the south route. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the member for those comments on Highway 67.

I just want to correct for the record that this is not a proposed extension of existing 67, it is an upgrading of the existing hig hwa y. The mem ber made reference in many occasions to the prop osed new route and so on. It is not a new route; it is very clearly an upgrading on the existing route of 67 at this time that is being undertaken by the department.

Certainly, the traffic projections would indicate that that route, regardless of another route being placed one mile south, known as the south route adjoining on to Highway 7, the existing route would still carry a tremendous volume of traffic from the north and east into Stonewall, utilizing the existing route that's there. The existing route is hazar dous and does need upgrading regardless. It needs upgrading on an urgent basis and that is why the department and myself have decided to upgrade that route as the first priority.

We had indicated to the Town of Stonewall and the R.M. of Rockwood, as the member has alluded to, that 100 we would be prepared to build a new route in a south location if they would be prepared to take over the existing route and the town would have only had to take over half-a-mile in the town limits. The remainder would have been taken over by the R.M., so the town would not have to accept a substantial amount of additional mileage or maintenance under their own program.

It would have a very small portion of the three miles - two-and-a-half miles for the R.M. of Rockwood, one-half a mile for the Town of Ston ewall. The Town of Stonewall - I can't speak for the mayo"r and council - but I believe that they have some strong preferences to see as much traffic as possible routed into the town rather than around the town on the south route. So I don't think it's because of pressure or the fact that they would have had to take over a half-a mile of road under the proposal that we made to them.

I think there are other reasons for it, but I don't want to put words and reasons in their mouths. They can speak for themselves certainly. It's unf ortunate that I didn't get a hold of the member. I wanted to discuss this with him during the past summer, and I did call a couple of times and didn't get in touch with him. Perhaps it would have been interesting at that time to have a discussion as to what his preferences were. I didn't see any preference indicated by the member during that time of that discussion. I asked the individuals when I did meet with them, the group headed by Mr.

Hickey, I believe, whose brief the member was referring to during his dissertation here this evening, and had indicated to me that the ML A had not taken any position whatsoever on this and had not given them support. It's true that there is a wide difference of opinion as to what should actually take place there and because of the priority of having to upgrade the existing route to make it safe at the present time, we have decided to proceed there. There is only a minimum amount of right-of-way being taken or required from the first half mile

section that the member referred to. I believe it's through, having 15 driveways, only 15 feet is being required. It will not touch the trees that are on those lots. It's a very minimal amount. The majority will be taken on the other side of the road and therefore we will still be able to upgrade the road to the required standard, so there is a need to upgrade the existing road and that's what we're intending to do.

It's true that, over a period of time, it may develop that a more through route would be desirable as traffic patterns develop, perhaps with as a connection to Highw ay 16 , thr ough 227, 67-227, across to the Yellowhead from Selkirk, as well; that there may be a need at some future time to provide another route there, and that might be an ideal election issue for the member with regard to the future as to whether he would want to provide that kind of a route if he were in government in the province at some future time. So that is something that can be considered in the future.

We're not making any commitments with regard to that at the present time. We're saying that the existing route needs to be upgraded and the situation described by the member exists at the present time and it will not be agg ravated by an upgraded road, it will be made safer because the road itself will have better alignment, better vertical alignment as well, into Stonewall. I think that it, therefore, will be safer when it's upgraded, rather than more hazardous than it is at the present time.

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 I think the decision that was made on the basis of priorities was that we should go with the existing route, and I think it's the right decision. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Minister, I noted that the designation of what we referred to. and what I will continue to refer to as the east access route to Stonewall from Provincial Trunk Highway No. 7, has recently been redesignated with the No. 67. That certainly reads the message to the residents that this is, indeed, Provincial Trunk Highway No. 67. HON. J. PLOHMAN: It has always has been for years, Mr. Chairman. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, the same concerns that I expressed, and I have no objection to the upgrading of that access road into Stonewall. I have some idea though what the requir ements are for minimum standards of a provincial trunk highway, in terms of access to it, and in terms of its physical construction requirements. I ask the Min ister is he upgrading that access road to Stonewall to the standards of what I refer to as other 600 series roads, access roads to communities, or is he upgrading it to provindical trunk high way standards? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Well it's somewhere in between, to be specific in the answer, between the 600 series and the provincial trunk hig hway standards, because of the specific situation that exists and the desire not to aggravate the existing residences along the area.

The right-of-way being expropriated is going to be the very minimum that is required to upgrade the road to an acceptable standard, perhaps certainly not what would be required to full PTH standard in terms of the slopes and shoulder widths, 8 ft. shoulders as opposed 10, that would be applied to provincial trunk highways, so there are some allowances being made and some flexibility there so that the concerns that are raised by th e ind ividuals affected are being taken into consideration. It is, as I have indicated, the upgrading is somewhat more than the standards required for a simple access. MR. H.

ENNS: Will any current accesses to the road be affected? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I would interpret the question, as being affected, would mean is he asking whether they would be eliminated or removed. The answer is, no. MR. H. ENNS: That means that residents on 4th Street in Stonewall won't be able to continue to back onto this facility as they get out of their lanes? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, very clearly, the member is referring to that section, the north-south

section that is 236 and 67 jointly num bered hig hway at that PR and high way at that point, that is not the

section that is being upg raded that we were talking about that's being affected here. We're talking about the east-west

section between Stonewall and Highway No. 7 that the upgrading is being undertaken. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Min ister, I understand that as late as six or eight months ago, you, Mr. Minister, and the 701 department, in correspondence or in direct consultation with the commun ity, indicated that eithe r/or, in other words, if the Town of Stonewall and the R.M. of Rockwood came in with their unanimous preference for the south road the department would be quite happy to build it on the south road. I have to tell you, Mr.

Minist�r. the planning boys when I was Minister never made it that easy for me; they usually told me where the high way had to go for sound planning reasons, for safety reasons and for a lot of other reasons.

I'm a little disturbed that if that was the Highway's position six or eight months ago, then I have to come back to my original contention, then I am concerned because this could well be 5-, 6- or 8-year period, before changes could be made that we are, and the department is, deliberately routing a major trunk high way through the series of problems, traffic-wise, that this brief clearly and precis ely documents. I say to the Min ister, as the ML A - and I'll hang my shirt on it come election time, Mr.

Minister - that of course we want the access route upgraded, and I recognize that it has some difficulties in terms of lack of shoulders, general condition. But, Mr. Min ister, I will tell you that I would far sooner see any monies expended in that area to the natural completion of No. 67 in the southerly direction on the southern route, and just reverse your priorities. Three years from now, or five years from now, or eight months from now, when they have another Min ister, then we'll improve the access route. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I have ind icated earlier, Mr.

Chairman, the projections are that the existing route would require upgrading because it will continue to take considerable traffic even if another route was built. In reference to the statement regarding a preference for the south route, I think I can safely say that it wasn't the department's preference. It was my decision to suggest to the municipalities and the town that we would be prepared to construct the south route if they would be prepared to take over a corresponding number of miles of road, which is a policy that we're generally following in any area where we are constructing new alignments for roads.

Generally over the years the department and the Ministers have not made this a priority. They have continued to add miles to the highway system. When we have a situation where we're having difficulty maintaining and upgrading our existing highway system, we don't want to get into a situation where we are adding additional miles. So I thought it was a sound decision to say okay, if the R.M. and the town were so inclined to trade off on this and they felt this was important to have that south route in place, that I would offer that as an alternative.

However, as the member knows, the municipalities were not inclined to that kind of a trade off, so we have proceeded with the established plans of the department which were, and preference was, to upgrade the existing route. We're proceeding with that at this time. Then the second priority would be, at some future time, some future Minister might decide to build a south route to have a direct connection to the existing 67

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 on the other side of Stonewall where it joins onto 236. That's a possibility. But we have taken a decision in terms of priorities, that the existing route has to be upgraded, and that's what we're doing. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Minister, I won't get into the discussion with you with respect - and you're quite correct - trade offs are made from time to time as in some instances traffic patterns change. The municipality will request that a different

section of road be taken into the provincial road system, and one is taken back. I really want to come back to my central argument because I want to get after these Boris Hryhorczuks and the Brian Johnstons, these planners that like to push politicians like you and me around, Mr. Min ister, and tell us where and how and why we can't do certain things.

I am not satisfied that these gentlemen that I have the greatest respect for in their professional integ rity, that they are satisfied, that they are honestly advising you to encourage major traffic to travel through the suicide lane that's described in this report, and whether or not they should not be, and whether or not they would not be and why they are not advising you to change your priorities. Mr. Min ister, you're quite correct. Under the existing system, the north route is the only dust-free, hardtopped road in whatever condition it's in, the condition is not that bad.

It is still eminently preferable to the dusty mun icipal road known as the dump road which needs considerable work. But will the Minister and the department not agree that if the department chose to change its priorities and proceed with the extension on the south road, that it would balance the traffic flows? It would considerably ease the demands on the admittedly less than optimal standard of the north route, and you would have the best of both worlqs, Mr. Minister.

You would have the Department of Highways not committing itself to an action that could cost the taxpayers a considerable amount of money to correct five, 10 years from now, whenever that date is, and it may well be in the future.

Surely I think the highway planners would sleep more comfortably with that than putting myself - that's not that well experienced and when I haul a semitrailer - with a questionable licence - of round bales and try to negotiate those 90-degree turns on that route - there's a lot of hay being hauled from the bog in that area across from Selkirk into my area of Woodlands, surely from a highway planning point of view your advice must be, Mr. Min ister, the south route. HON. J.

PL OHMAN: The membe r is correct tha t certainly at times it's very difficult for politicians to try to change the minds of the professional planners on these things. So he can appreciate the giant step forward that I took in suggesting to the municipalities and the Town of Stonewall that we would be willing to build the other route. That wasn't the preference at the present time.

Now if the department had its way, I would imagine that they would like to see both routes there in terms of planning the south route and the existing route made safer to meet the existing traffic and the projected traffic, regardless of whether there is a south route. 702 But in terms of having to set priorities, they have decided as they had before I became Minister that this was the best decisi on, to proceed where we are intending to proceed at this time. That was the feeling in terms of priority needs in that area, because of the existing inadequacy of that road.

It may look to the Honourable Member for Lakeside or myself driving down the road that it's in that bad a condition. However, there is a tremendous volume of traffic on that road and there would continue to be substantial traffic on that road according to the studies that I've seen (Interjection) - well, considerably but not to the extent that it would make a vast difference in the requirements for that road. So the narrow shoulders and the poor alignment requires that it do be upgraded and resurfaced.

As the honourable member knows, it's difficult to keep adding additional bituminous overlay on top of an existing nar row roadway before it becomes extr emely hazardous, because there are no shoulders there to support it and you're going to have a very fast drop off. So it has to be upgraded and that is the priority of the department. That, I understand, is one that they sleep fairly well with at the present time. I don't know. Brian hasn't told me that he is tossing and turning an awful lot because of that decision, but that is what they have recommended.

Certainly I tried the other one and there doesn't seem to be any support for the other route from the councils at this particular time. Considering what small amount that we were considering for a trade-off, I would have thought that they would have thought that was an excellent idea but they didn't go for that at the present time.

The town, I believe as I stated earlier, can speak for themselves, but I believe they strongly would like to see that traffic that's travelling the existing 67 continue to travel the existing 67 for various reasons, for business in the town, development in the quarry area that they're working on, tourism and so on, they would like to see the existing traffic remain there. They have, in their wisdom, stated that by resolution, the council, in representing those people.

I have to consider their views as well and I realize there is a difference of opinion because of the group that has raised this brief, and has put together the brief. They have legitimate concerns, but we think that we've gone a considerable distance to meeting those concerns, and that we aren't going to be affecting their property substantially. They would be faced with this in any event in the near future because that road does have to be upgr aded. MR. H. ENNS: Now, Mr. Min ister, let me understand it. You're not touching 4th Street? HON. J. PL OHMAN: I should correct that.

That's not part of the additional right-of-way being taken. There will be some improvements made to 4th Street in terms of overlay and perhaps some base work first, but that does not involve requirements for additional right-of way within the existing right-of-way on 4th Street. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Minister, you know the situation. I believe you've been onsite; 67 comes in like this to 4th Street.

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 HON. J. PLOHMAN: That's the existing situation you're describing. MR. H. ENNS: It could just carry on like this to No. 7 Highway, but you are proposing to route that a 90- degree corner on a residential street with eight side streets corning in, leading it to where the buses cong regate at the second 90-degree corner, and then from thereon in you are going to impr ove, upgrade the highway. This portion, other than maybe capping, you're not doing anything on it.

I'm just finding it very difficult and I'm sure members of the committee are finding it very diffi cult to und erst and tha t kind of hig hway planning, Mr. Min ister. I'm simply indicating to you that it's not acceptable to what I consider to be a majority of residents. But I go one step further. I'm having difficulty in accepting that this is really what the department is proposing. I have a great deal of respect for the department. I have a great deal of respect for their capability of proper planning and design; I also have. concern about future cost to the taxpayers.

Has the Min ister, has the department, provided the Min ister with any preliminary costs to correct some of these problems? Let's take, for example, simply those two 90-degree turns, which simply are not acceptable in provincial trunk highway standards. We are obviously talking about expropriation of properties. In both instances, there are businesses and homes involved on both corners. Has the Minister got any idea, any preliminary costs of making those improvements? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: First of all, there is I think a misunderstanding about the traffic patterns there, and for the honourable member, I would like to provide him with the information that the traffic counts and patterns indicate that the majority of east-west traffic in that area is destined for Stonewall. It's traffic that wants access into Stonewall, the vast majority of it. A very small proportion of that traffic is actually following that through route that the member has relayed here with the 90-degree curves and so on, or corners.

So what we're dealing with is a situation that does not warrant at the present time a planning for an upgraded through route east-west through the north Interlake and connecting onto Highway No. 16, that kind of app roach to it. That may develop at some point, those needs with the addition of the north of Selkirk bridge and some changes in the Selkirk corridor and so on at some point in the future that there will be a need to have that as a major con nector, but that's not the case at the present time. The traffic patterns simply show that that's not the case.

That traffic is destined for Sto newall, both east and west. So on that assumption and with that information the decision to go ahead with what we are planning is a sound one. Now, at some point in the future, in terms of planning as I've indicated, perhaps straightening out of that route, east-west, will be something that should be undertaken, but that is not timely at this present time. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(a)( 1) - the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I won't prolong the discussion at this point.

I simply want to indicate to 703 the Minister and the department that I have certainly no objection; in fact, I'm encouraged if the department wishes to proceed with the improvements to the existing facility which I keep referring to as an access route. I object strenuously to it being referred to as an extension of No. 6 Provincial Trunk Highway, because from what little I have managed to glean and learn that route by no stretch of imagination can or ought to be referred to as a trunk highway.

If, for the present purposes, a temporary designation 67 A or B is felt necessary, fine, but I object strenuously to the department suggesting that a provincial trunk highway should be routed in that manner . I would ask the Minis ter and the department to be particularly sensitive to the nature of the facility now in place. The fact that it is a residential street for one part, the fact that it is accessed, has been allowed to be accessed because it did not require the more stringent regulations that I certainly accept should apply to a provincial trunk highway.

I don't accept the premise of the traffic information currently being presented by the Minister that of course when you have an option of travelling on a dusty bumpy stony gravel road with no shoulders, and a reasonable - in terms of rule standards - dust free, asphalt su rface road, I know where the cars are going to be. I know where the cars are going to travel on. I'm simply suggesting that traffic count will alter appreciably because a great deal of that traffic, which I agree with the Minister, is Stonewall focused, but just as much traffic comes in from the Stony Mountain area.

Stonewall is a commuter city with many of its residents commuting to Winnipeg. Fortunately, they have another access south, 236, which hooks up to the Perimeter south, but many of them would use the new facility, particularly if the Minister gets on with building the overpass at No. 7 and the Perimeter. Many of those residents, and I predict that the larger traffic flow would in fact be on the south route, but, more important ly, the traffic flow that was not destined for Stonewall, the heavy commercial trucks, would not be forced to travel into residential Stonew all.

It would still meet the requirements of the town and the mayor of Stonewall with respect to encouraging the continued flow of traffic that naturally wants to go to Stonewall which is the focus for the destiny of most people when your driving on those roads in that area. So. Mr. Min ister, I leave you with those concerns. I regret that we did not have an occasion to discuss this. I must indicate to you that as late as five or six months ago the department certainly left the impression, and you, Mr.

Min ister, left the irnpr�ssion that either/ or, that you were certainly still amenable to building which I, and those who think like myself, feel is a preferable route, the south route. I understand it's only in the last little while, the last month - I may be wrong in the date - but a relatively short period of time, that a definitive decision has been made with respect to that facility. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, I just want to thank the member for expressing those concerns and I think that I share some of the concerns. and certainly I think that we will be making the existing route safer by what

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 we are undertaking, and I think it should be clear, though, that the designation of the existing 67 is not a recent occurrence. It has been designated as 67 right through to No. 7 highway for the last 20 years at least, so if there was another route put in at some other time maybe this would be renum bered if it remained under provincial responsibility, would be renumbered as a 600 series, but at the present time it's the major route and so it's quite suitably named 67; that has been the case for many years. MR. H.

ENNS: I just want to acknowledge the new designation that I spoke of refers to what we call the bog road which carries on from No. 7 to No. 9. That used to be a provincial num bered road and relatively recently has been redesignated to 67. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Min nedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was interested to carry along the message that the Member for Lakeside was conveying. In the conversation he mentioned how the planners and the Highway people sort of pushed the Minister into submission on accepting many of their professional and obviously proper views HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Give sound advice. MR. D. BLAKE: Sound advice. Obvious ly, in the case of the Selkirk Bridge, the planners threw the ball right back into the Minister's court by picking some six locations for bridge crossing on the Red River. So it would appear the decision taken for the location of the bridge that appears to be chosen now was a political one, rather than one based on maybe sound planning.

I was interested in the Minister's comments 'of 67 at some time maybe joining up with Highway 16, because way back in my territory in western Manitoba Highway 355, if you follow it to its ultimate conclusion, runs right through to Stonewall, or right through to Selkirk, the Lower Fort Garry. One of the routes that was proposed over the Red River would have conne cted 67 with Highw ay 44 reasonably well. There are rumours that 44 is going to be four laned, or at least a portion of it, before very very long.

It would have seemed to have been a logical spot for the new bridge, in view of the condition of the existing Lockport Bridge, to carry all of that heavy traffic. If 67 is completed it would join that route up and carry all of that traffic right straight through, or straight through and around, or south of Selkirk and around, rather than the traffic that the new bridge may be able to attract being north of Selkirk.

It's going to take some considerable expense to connect that up as well as it would be connected if they followed 67 right through to 44 and located a bridge there to service the whole particular area, because I think, Mr. Minister, there will be some flak, as you may be aware, on the location of the Selkirk Bridge when land acquisition takes place, because I think the Minister is well aware that a very large portion of the property required is owned by a member of the House and a Member of his Cabinet.

A lot of that will come locally as well as from some politicians. 704 I am just wondering what consideration was given to other locations or to a location such as the one I mentioned connecting 67 to 44. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, just to correct, for the record, a very small portion of the acquisition will be required from the Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. D. BLAKE: A very expensive piece of property. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well that hasn't been determined, exactly, all of the property would be about a similar value in that area. However, there were a number of locations studied both north and south of Selkirk.

I think the major concerns with replacing the structures south of Selkirk at this particular time are that the Lockport Bridge is the responsibility of the Federal Government, and certainly building another provincial bridge in there would let the Federal Government off the hook as to their responsibilities with the existing bridge, and we feel that there should be some obligation if they would like to see that closed at some time in cost-sharing a bridge south of Selkirk to act as a replacement to this load-restricted bridge that's there now, the Lockport Bridge, and the existing Selkirk Bridge which is also load restricted.

So there will be consideration at some future time, 10 to 20 years, 20 to 25 years, perhaps, down the road of a replacement of a bridge in that area, and we are looking at that as well in terms of protecting right-of way that may be necessary at some future time, at the present time, in conjunction with some studies in the Selkirk corridor area that are taking place.

But our major concern was, in the absence of having any negotiations or any ag reement from the Federal Government to cost-share on a south-of-Selkirk bridge, that it was necessary to provide another connection because of the load restrictions on those bridges at the present time. To replace the Selkirk Bridge at its present location, for example, and also eliminate the flooding on the east side tha t takes place in many spring runo ff situations with the Red River, would be in the neighbourhood of $7 million to $9 million and we would still be stuck with only two bridges to service that area.

So the decision was made then to look north of Selkirk, one that was supported very strenuously by the Town of Selkirk and the Chamber of Commerce and so on, I guess, for similar reasons that we have just been discussing with regard to Stonewall. They would like to see traffic not by-passing Selkirk, but indeed passing through Selkirk. So the decision . . . MR. D. BLAKE: That shouldn't be the main criteria for the location. HON. J. PLOHMAN: No, that was one of th e considerations th at was certai nly taken into consideration.

I raised the other matter of cost-sharing that would be necessary, that we would think it would be fair on the south-of-Selkirk replacement bridge at some future time. The projections are that the bridge north of Selkirk would carry 700 to 1,000 vehicles per day which is more than almost every bridge south of Winnipeg that

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 crosses the Red River. So it's not that this would be an under-utilized structure in its present location. MR. D. BLAKE: Where will that traffic come from? HON. J. PLOHMAN: That will involve all of the traffic that cannot be accommodated on the other two load restricted bridges. MR. D. BLAKE: Reroute them around. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: And coming from the east side, 304 area, the Parks area, up in that area, Highway 59, there are increased traffic volumes there all the time and a lot of that traffic coming from the north will move across the Red River on the existing location and connect up to Highway 9A on the west side. So it does provide that kind of connection. MR. D. BLAKE: It would be the heavy truck traffic that would come down 44 and 67, or straight south out of Selkirk and go either way. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Right now the heavy truck traffic has no alternative but to go down to the Perimeter Highway to get across the Red River.

So the location north of Selkirk would be much more desirable for them than travelling all the way down to the Perimeter. It depends which way they're going. If they are going into the Interlake area there is a lot of pulp haul that takes place through that area and that comes from the Interlake area. So there is a projected traffic, as I have indicated, of a substantial amount that would use this bridge, and certainly equal to or greater than any of the other crossings south of Winnipeg and across the Red River. So there is a strong justification for a bridge in that location.

I think in terms of the actual location north of Selkirk, we have to consider a number of things, and that's why there were options presented by the department for consideration, not only for myself as Minister but also for consideration of the local communities, the residents and individuals affected there and other departments of government as well. The seaplane base located north of Selkirk would have been affected by a route that would have been chosen, say, south of the one that has been chosen, so that was a major consideration.

We didn't want to affect their operations as a major seaplane base, Selkirk Air, as well as the historical sites, the St. Peter's Church, very valuable archeological sites in that area of the Peguis Band that was located there previously. So we wanted to avoid those areas as well. Those were kinds of consideration. Agriculture was a consideration when looking at the route on the west side of the river where it com es around hugging the existing transmission line route as oppo sed to taking additional agricultural land.

So we consid ered with other departments a num ber of concerns that were raised, as well as the desire to affect the least numb er of pr operty owners and residences along the way. We also wanted to of course cross the Red River at a location that would require the minimum length of 705 bridge. Some other alternatives that were considered were much longer such as the Sugar Island location that was closer to Selkirk just north, and the costs would have been much greater going in that area. So all of those things were considered. The local Planning Board was cons ulted.

The mun icipaliti es were consulted , the Chamber of Commerce, the Town of Selkirk and the residences were involved in arriving at a specific final location. It was coincidental that the best location after all of those considerations was one that did unfortunately affect one of my colleague's prop erty, but that did not have a bearing on the final location. It's very coincidental. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Min nedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: The proposed site for the Alcan plant affected a colleague of mine's property but it has since resolved itself.

I was interested in the Minister's comment about affect ing farmlan d. Farm land was one of the considerations. I think if he will look at the proposed site the farmlands in those days as you know, Mr. Min ister, a�e very long and narrow strips. The proposed route goes right down the centre of a homesteaded parcel of land that is excellent farmland,

whereas just slightly south of it, there is a corridor of bush and rock that's not arable at all within hun dreds of yard running right through to 59. I don't think that location was maybe looked at thoroughly enough than selling it. HON. J. PLOHMAN: It was. MR. D. BLAKE: What effect would that have had on the original route had that route been chosen rather than the

section just slightly north that runs right through the Hryhorczuk property? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well the dif ference of a few hund red yards can make a big difference to a seaplane operation. We had looked at a more southerly route, as I indicated, I believe in the area that the member is talking about. MR. D. BLAKE: Well this is not that far south, it's a matter of ... HON. J. PLOHMAN: The alignment in crossing the Red River would have been a concern to the planners and the eng ineers looking at that situation.

I couldn't just give exactly the criteria, the concerns that were raised with that particular one, but certainly, provided additional difficulties with the actual crossing of the river itself. MR. D. BLAKE: I know running south there, the proposed new road wouldn't join up with the existing paved road there that doesn 't go anywhere. I can see then the connection on the sitE.. I've got some other questions, Mr. Min ister, but my colleague for Virden has some points he wants to raise tonight. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, when we're dealing with Planning and Design, I would like to talk about

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 the planning that is taking place, in particular with one PR on the western side of the province, PR No. 571, which runs from PTH No. 41 west to the Saskatchewan boundary. I have some of the road programs from previous years in front of me, Mr. Chairman. I note that it was probably back in'79 or'80 when the first plans were put forward for the building of this 4. 1 miles. I think there's a very valid reason why it was put in the road program because there is a large amount of traffic particularly with the potash industry now and renewed oil activity in the Rocanville-Moosomin area.

There is a lot of traffic across th ere, and it's particularly disturbing and is not really a very good advertisement for the Province of Manitoba when you drive off a paved road onto four miles of gravel, and then connect up with pavement again. So there was this little stretch of four miles that was gravel, and there was I think a genuine desire on the part of the government to at least provide a sort of a continuous surface for the travelling public. If they are going from asphalt onto asphalt, there was a certain desire to see that it be a continuous type of surface.

About two or three years ago we went - and I've watched the progression of the various projects through the various years - we went from acquisition of right of-way to the actual grade. Now this happened not during your term of office, Mr. Minister, but the previous Min ister. But unfortunately that is as far as it has gone, so the real reason it was there in the first place, for the travelling public to drive off asphalt onto four miles of gr avel and then reconnect with asphalt again, still exists. The department has only done half of the job.

They have done the grade and the gravel part, but we still have a gravel surface there and I notice in the program for this year an absence of any mention of that particular four-mile stretch of road. ' I know the Min ister has many requests and many priorities but apparently this is not one of them.

I suggest to the Min ister that it does not assist in promoting the image of a good road system in Manitoba for anyone coming from Saskatchewan to go bouncing over four miles of gravel and suffering stone bruises to their windshields and the odd broken headlight and the odd broken windshield, because there is a lot of truck traffic on there. There's a steady flow of truck traffic hauling potash from the Rocanville Mine, and there are also oil trucks on the road which are hauling oil from the various oil wells in the Rocanville area that do feed into the pipeline at Cromer.

I was wondering if the Min ister would consider an expedited program of completing what I consider to be a half-finished job. The intention of government I thought was excellent when they did agree to do the project, but now we find that the project is only half completed, and I was wondering if the Minister would care to comment and give us some indication of when we might see an asphalt surface on that four-mile stretch. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for raising his concerns and concerns perhaps of many others along the area that he's mentioning on 571. That short

section as he's indicated was upgraded and two AST standards with the width that is required for 706 su bsequent AST. However, it is a road from our indications that has about 125 vehicles per day average daily traffic. When you consider that in terms of many other roads in the province, it is rather low; it's a Class 4. When we're talking about the average daily traffic, we had Class 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, this would be the second lowest, for maintenance purp oses, the num ber of vehicles per day.

From that standpoint, it's not a high priority, but the member raises some good points about the fact that the road is paved in Saskatchewan and it would be desirable to have that connection at least with an AST su rface. That would result, of course, in weight restrictions in spring in that area where they're not at the present time. That's one of the drawbacks of an AST surface, but one that certainly I should mention. It is ready to proceed as are a number of other projects where upgrading has taken place, and as the member recognizes that all of the roads that are upgraded cannot immediately be surfaced.

As a matter of fact, we're looking at expanding our dust treatment to a number of roads, so that we can provide a better and safer surface because we're not able to place an AST surface on all of those. Because it was upgraded, it does not mean that automatically it would follow that AST would take place, say, the subsequent year. I can tell the honourable member that we will consider that seriously in the next highway construction program and I will take his comments into consideration at that time. MR. CHAIRMAN: It's now 10:00 and I'd like to give a chance to the Member for Swan River who has been waiting.

The Member for Virden may have some more questions. MR. H. GRAHAM: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just got started but if you want to call it 10 o'clock. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Whatever you want. MR. H. GRAHAM: I could carry on because I have about a half-an-hour. MR. CHAIRMAN: If we're not going to finish it, why start it? MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr. Chairman, just one more question on this particular road. It may further influence the Min ister.

I would like to draw to his attention the maintenance that is required on that road has to come from the Birtle office which requires a large amount of dead-heading on the maintainer to arrive at that four mile section. So the cost of maintenance, while it may only be 12 or 15 times a year ... HON. J. PLOHMAN: Twenty times. MR. H. GRAHAM: . . . the cost of it is considerably higher than it would be for a normal road. MR. CH AIRMAN: What is the pleasure of the committee? Committee rise.

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 SUPPLY - HE ALTH MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Comm ittee, come to order. We are considering the Estimates of the Department of Health. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. CHAIRMAN: Before proceeding , I would like to direct the attention of members to the gallery where we have a group of 25 boy scouts from the Charleswood Scout Troop. They are under the direction of Mr. Bob Harris, and are from the constituency of the Honourable Member for Charleswood. On behalf of all the members, I would like to welcome you here tonight. SUPPLY - HEALTH Cont'd MR. CHAIRMAN: We are considering Item 1.(

c) Research and Planning - the Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the information of the Honourable Min ister of Labour , we will pass the Health Estimates. I think we might pass them a little quicker if he'd shut his mouth. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Minister for providing me with the Johnson Report on the Study of the MH O. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of follow-up questions, basis yesterday, on the activities within the Research and Planning Directorate.

Yesterday, I think it was in the even ing I believe, I was asking the Minister about the report that Dr. Evans from UBC was preparing, "Manitoba and Medicare." Is that the only report that Dr. Evans is working on for the department? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: That's very easy to talk about one report. Yes, he is only working on one report, but it will contain a lot of information mostly about the pr actice of medicine and the needs for beds in comparison with other areas. But I guess you could call it only the one report. He'll report once. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Now is that the report that's called, "M anitoba and Med ica re" or "M edicare and Manitoba"? Is that the general title? And the Minister indicated last night it wasn't finished yet. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, that's why I don't know the name, because I haven 't seen it yet. It is not completed. I'm told by staff that, yes , it is referred to by that name, by that title. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Cha irman, I'm troubled by a reference in the Minister's Annual Report for 1984 wherein, on Page 46, it indicates: "In consultation with a health economis t from the Uni versity of British Columbia, the Directorate has conducted a medical and hospital services utilization review." Is that the review? 707 HON. l. DESJARDINS: That's right. MR. D. ORCHARD: "H istorical data from 1971-72, 1976-77 and 1981 -82 were analyzed to measure changes in health care utilization during this decade. A report on the findings has been submitted to the Minister of Health." Who's right? Your report or your answer last night? HON. l.

DESJARDINS: I think I mentioned yesterday that the draft report - I have the draft report - it wasn't completed, and that Dr. Evans will be coming in a couple of weeks, I think, to make a presentation to the Cabinet. MR. D. ORCHARD: So then this reference in the 1984 Annual Report of the Department of Health, the report it refers to in here that's been submitted to the Minister of Health is the draft report? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Part of the information wasn't complete, Mr. Chairman. Yes, as I mentioned yesterday, I did get some information on it, but it hasn't been finalized. He'll be presenting it to the Cabinet.

As I pr om ised yesterd ay, I'll make it available to the members of the House and the honourable member. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, in the course of discussions last night Denis Roch is indicated as a member of the Planning Directorate, is this the same Denis Roch that is brother-in-law to the Clerk of the Privy Council? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, it is, and I think he is also a cousin of the would-be candidate in Springfield for the Conservative Party. A MEMBER: Fine fellow then. MR. D. ORCHARD: Not unless he has an "e" on the end of his name would he be a cousin. Well, Mr.

Chairman, this brings up an interesting point because the Minister indicated yesterday afternoon or maybe it was in the evening - I'll review Hansard and find out which - this planning effort is a very important effort , and it should be apolitical and that if the government changes at the end of the next election that the new government shouldn't scrap all the plans that are made by the current government. Mr.

Chairman, I have to agree with the Minister that that is the way government should work because the efforts of one government should not necessarily be cast aside simply because plans, ,or future direction, were drawn up in other administrations and other political party's time of administration. Mr. Cha irman, I don't kn ow wha t Mr. Roch's background is, in terms of planning in the health care field, etc., etc., but it is this kind of nepotism, if I can use that word, which jeoparizes legitimate planning dforts by government.

This Planning Secretariat that the Minister glowingly refers to has been set up newly by the Min ister of Health, it's a planning and research group that has been put together, and may or may not be doing excellent work, but the suspicion is certainly wide open, whether it's legitimate or not, that when you have staffing in this - and they're hign-p riced staff,

cost a lot of money - and you bring in the brother-in law of the Clerk of the Privy Council, a highly identified and very close New Democratic Party strategist and planner and worker, and when his brother-in law is floated into a planning and research group that is newly formed by a new government, a new political party, the Minister leaves himself and his government wide open to having the plans drawn up by that deportment being seriously questioned.

So I want to tell the Minister that I accept his advice that plans, just because they are made by another government, should not automatically be thrown out by a new administration when they come in simply because th ey were drawn up by a previous administration. You won't make all the mistakes and neither will we when we are government, and some of the things we're planning to do will be equally applicable in our term of administration as they would be in yours.

But if you want that kind of objectivity to carry forward from administration to administ ration you at least have to appear as if you're not bringing in imports from other provinces with political identifications very close to the political structure of the party. In this case, that suspicion can certainly be voiced, and quite legitimately I think questioned by a new administration. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Min ister could indicate the salary of Mr. Roch. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I can't start to express how disappointed I am in my honourable friend.

Surely there is enough in this department without trying to, by innuendos and suggestions, to ruin or damage somebody's reputation. For the edification of my honourable friend, Mr. Roch is an economist. He was formerly an associate of the Economic Consulting Firm of Hildebrandt and Young. He was a bag man, I think, for the Conservatille party who did an awful lot of work for the party at one time. Mr. Roch taught economics at the St. Bon iface College. He has never been involved in politics and furthermore, he was at the commission starting in 1971.

Now I'd never heard of Mike Deeter at the time, and I think it is pretty cheap in this society of somebody because they happen to be related with somebody, when they're fully qualified, when the commission were very sorry to see him go when he left, and they tried to get him back. But I never heard Mr. Roch get involved in politics at all, and in any reports he has always said it or written it the way it was. He never tried to play games at all, and I don't think it's fair. I certainly don't think it's fair.

You're not going to start every time somebody goes into politics, people that are making their living for instance in this case as an economist, then all of a sudden he can't do any work when we need economists, and they're not that easy to get because he has a relative in there. Surely, we could have confidence in people a little more than that. We've got another one that I have an awful lot of confidence with. He's a former Minister of Health, of the Conservative Party, Dr.

George Johnson, who we are using a lot more than the former government was, and who I think is a very hone st man, and I'm sure he's still a Cons ervative. His daughter was the organizer for the Federal party, the Executive Director, I think it was, for the Federal 708 1985 party. She's still working for the party. His son ran during that time for the Cons ervative party against us. It didn't mean very much. I had at one time somebody related to Mr. Spivak who was the Leader of the Opposition, and I don't think it's worthy of my honourable friend to ... fine. If you want to ask questions, fine.

Well, of course, I can't stop you anyway, it's your privilege. But I don't think it's proper before you find out what the story is or the background of these people to try to link him 4n something sinister and something to just give somebody a job because they're related to somebody else that happens to work for the government. I don't think that's fair. No. How much is he getting paid? He's getting paid $52,000 a year, and by the way, he's the one that's on term to do some of that work at this time. MR. D. ORCHARD: Could the Minister indicate the names of the other people in the Planning directorate, please?

HON. l. DESJARDINS: If I have to go through the 5,000 people in my department, it will be a hell of a long time. I might even find a cousin of yours. In the meantime, there were other statements that were made yesterday and I'm getting a little fed up with these statements. There was a statement made in accusing my colleagues of - Miss Theresa Ducharme - who has raised a lot of dust around here, who I think the former Minister refused to see. I think she went to the Omb udsman. She went to the Huma n Rights Comm issi on, and she was turned down in every instance.

Well, just for the members of this committee to know what's going on, to think that we are turning our back on these people to think that they can be difficult and they can be unfair because they happen, and we always hesitate to bring any names up like that, but it wasn't brought up by me at this time. Let me give you an idea what this government did, and the former government did just as much for Mr. Chairman.

In 1981, they paid over $8,000 for orderlies, $24,000 for the attendants, supplies - the record of supplies wasn't kept - the wheelchairs was $7,203, for a total of $39,000; in 1982 it went to $42,000; in 1983 it went to $73,000 plus $26,000 for her hospital stay, so many days in a hospital, while her husband was in the hospital; and this year for three months it's already around $1 8,000.00. So to say that we are turning our back on people that are hand icapped is exaggerating quite a bit.

I will give you the names now and I will ask staff to prepare the background of all these people and that will be also given to the members of this committee later on. Mr. David Pascoe is director, Dennis Roch, Kathleen Scher er, Jennifer Clinch, John Kenny , Barbara Millar, Brian Gudmundson, Jan Weedon, Lucienne Stadnyk, Diane Karpenic. MR. D. ORCHARD: I thank the Minister for those names. We will possibly, at a later date, discuss the individual that the Min ister referred to earlier on this evening. Are there plans to fill the vacancy in the Research and Planning group?

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, eventually we hope to fill the vacancy, and hope they fill the vacancy with a type of person that we want that could be helpful to us. As I say, even after tonight, I am very proud of the work that has been done by this group and I certainly hope th ey continue because th ey are pro vidin g information that should be helpful to government now and future governments. MR. D. ORCHARD: Does this Planning and Research group do any sort of research and the planning on the introduction of new diagnostic or surgical techniq ues? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: No, th ere are dif ferent committees at the commission and these committees are com posed mostly - in those kind of committees anyway - of physicians and they are the ones that advise the commission most of the time on that. They mostly talk about administration, the systems an d, as I say, the practice of medicine, the pattern, to see what we need for the future. They are not involved too much in medicine, research or anything like that. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Ok ay, then, is it fair to glean from th at answer th at researc h in th e new diagnostic technique or surgical procedure is done through the MHSC, through research comm ittees and planning committees in MH SC? What I am looking for from the Minister is where it would be more appropriate to discuss th at sort of medic al pr ocedure, no t administrative planning? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, I can answer that. There is very little of that done by the government. Now if I understand the question correctly, this is done by the medical profession, this is a function of the medical profes sion.

I don't think, if you 'r e talking about equipment, that might be di fferent, the commission is certainly involved in that, but methods of treating the patients and the drugs and so on, that is done mostly by the medical profession and there is discussion with the commission. The best place to discuss that would be, I would imagine, either under Medicare or under the Manitoba Health Services Commission. MR. D. ORCHARD: Ok ay, I realize, Mr.

Chairman, that the medical profession are the ones who would look at new techniques and new surgical procedures, but there surely must be someone within the Department of Health or Manitoba Health Services Commission which would say, yes, we believe this is a technique and a procedure that we should fund under Medicare. That's the area of analysis and research that I would like to know, is that better discussed under MH SC, because that's fine with me if it is? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I guess the best way, Mr. Chairman, to describe the commission, it is mostly an in sur ance company .

It insur es in th is pr ogram - Medicare, hospitalization, the other program that we have under Pharmacare, personal care homes. It also provides the grants for the air ambulance, and the air ambulance would also be under the commission. Anything like that, first of all, has to be approved by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Then once 709 that is app roved and that information is given to the commission, well, then the commission will deal with it; not everything is automatically accepted. MR. D. ORCHARD: That's what I'm getting at. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Oh no, not everyt hing is automatically accepted, we have a list. Nearly every day I receive letters that something else should be covered in the plan and so on. That is a political decision, but of course we try to make those decisions with the best advice and try to cover the needs as much as possible, but there is no way that this becomes automatic that we cover everything, we won't even consider it.

For instance, I'v e been receiving many letters for the last two or three years about pump . . . what is it? - infusion pumps and so on, and that has never been fully appro ved, maybe that is the one my friend is thinking about. That, of course, would not receive, we wouldn't even consider approving and including that in the program until it has received app roval from the College of Physicians and Surgeons. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, all I want to make sure is that - and I think I've got the answer - this Research and Planning group does not get involved in evaluating medical procedures, so that's not the proper place to discuss that, it would be better to do that, say, if I could make a suggestion, under the Manitoba Health Services Commission. Surely there's an area in there where we can discuss that. Can I ask the Minister whether this group, Research and Planning group, recommended the process that the Minister identified - I'll have to dig it out - in his opening remarks?

But, basically, was this the group that recommended the offering of funding assistance to public health nurses who wish to take university education? Is that where the idea came from? HON. L. DESJARDINS: The government receives advice from more than one direction or one source. This group is the planning. What they would do is they've been asked or commissioned to do certain studies, and they will try to do it.

Now, in this case, and I want to serve notice on this committee, I am not automatically going to answer the question, first of all, because I don't know exactly where the recommendation came from, but I think that's an internal matter. In this case I don't mind, but if it's going to become something like was asked of my colleagues in the House, well I think that's an internal matter. It is staff and I don't think it's proper to put staff on the spot. The responsibility in this belongs to the Minister and the government, and if we get that advice we have to suffer with it also.

In this case, this came from one of our Assistant Deputy Ministers, Dr. Wilt, who is I think, a very respected gentleman, who's Assistant Deputy Minister mostly in Community Health and we're trying to build that portion. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. 01airman, I'm not on a witch hunt on this particular item. I'm not trying to lead the Minister any place on this item and it's interesting to know that Dr. Wilt, who is heading up community health

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 programming, would make that recommendation. But I want to use the opportunity to suggest to the Minister of Health a course of action. If Dr. Wilt saw obviously a need for additional public health nurse training and expertise, and he's identified for the Minister a method by which that can be accomplished, it is going to require some additional funding to make sure the manpower is there, the Minister's got an ongoing problem with staffing complements in intensive care.

One of the problems that's identi fied is that the nine month training course is at a reduced salary rate and, if the additional training to public health nurses and delivery of a program is deemed as a necessary place to spend short dollars, I would simply ma ke th e suggestion to the Min ister, and maybe his Planning and Research group could determine whether it's economic and feasible to somehow take the negative incentive away, to take that nine-month intensive care unit training program. It may or may not deter, but you don't know, it's given as a reason why nu rses aren't going into intensive care units.

There's a myriad of other reasons why nurses may not want to be there, because of the pressure, etc., etc., but the point I make is that you'r e offering a financial incentive to upgrade and train public health nurses, maybe the Planning and Research group should analyze and see whether a similar program is necessary to provide the staffing complements that are needed to man your intens ive care unit beds. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to answer this question, but I would appeal to the Committee, after that, that we get back on line-by-line.

I think that we certainly have been trying to be helpful as much as possible. There is a certain rule around on the question of Research and Planning. I think you can talk about the direction of where the governl)'lent is going, but there'll be different opportunities to ask these questions if we stay line-by-line, and it will be a lot easier to follow here, a lot easier to get the answers. Now I think the first thing that I should mention is the public health nurses work for us; they're hired by us,

whereas the intensive care nurses ar working in the hospital. They have the responsibility to recruit and so on. Now it might be that was a bad mistake. From all indications, it is not the number that went in this course - we had plenty of those - the problem was those that stayed. Many of them were either married or left and so on, others then, because they were highly trained, were looking for more of an administration job and they received administration jobs, They used that I guess, some of them, as a stepping stone.

Now if you remember, we thought the main problem, not the only place, but there's been problems in the rural areas and also in the north. Then the former government also had the same problem; this is not a new problem. The situation then was that in hospitals it was felt that they were brought in from the rural area, from the north, and then it was very difficult to have them back in the same location where they were before. That's one of the situations and I think I announced one time that we were going to bring the show on the road, as a matter of speaking.

This was one of their recommendations that was going, and help them get their training right in their location; for instance, in the 710 north, or fairly large centres. Well, obviously, they would need intensive care in smaller hospitals an yway. This is one of the things that was done. All the advice that we have is that program did not help in the recruiting of nurses. This was one of the reasons that it was discontinued, and we'll try, besides that, to help in the training to have the hospitals train them also.

Then there's the question of recruiting, at times the money was there but nothing could be done by the different hospitals. Of course we have the responsi bility because we're responsible for the health of the people of Manitoba, but it's not exactly the same thing as if the people are working for you, such as, public health nurses that you're hiring and that you train. I think that there might be some changes also, from what I understand, the little I saw of the first draft of the other report that I said I'd give you as soon as I got it, the O'Sullivan Report.

I think that they mentioned the public health nurse, also. In fact, I remember the case that not necessarily all public health nurses should have degrees; they could have diplomas and then train after that, that's another possibility. But the whole question of nurse training and so on, we're waiting for the report that was prepared that we should have within a couple of weeks, and we will have to decide how we go ahead with that part of it because there's problems there, there's no doubt that. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Could the Minister indicate whether the Research and Planning group will be liaising with the members of the Premier's, about to be hired five man people, two of which the Premier indicated the other day will be communicating and doing research and evaluation of health delivery programs; will this group be liaising with the individuals the Premier is about to hire, the $261,000 five-man team that he's got in his estimates this year? HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I have no idea how many of these people will be hired, I know that there's some.

I think the Premier has already annou nced that this will be done. It is his wish and, of course, if we're asked to co-operate we'll co-operate 100 percent with him to the liase. I think that we're trying to build up this committee on social services also and it is very difficult, when you look at the future, that you just talk about the one department. For instance, the Social Services Committee will group different departments that are working in the social progr ams; for ins tance, hea lth, educ ation, community services and so on.

We're studying and we hope to have some kind of a recommendation of what should be done for the future. There's no doubt, now anyway, we're certainly leaning toward more community health programs, more prevention and so on. I think that this is where they'll be useful to co-ordinate between the different departments. If these people are hired we would be very very disappointed if we're left out. If they don't liase with us, then it would be just duplicating the services and what they've done and, as I say, we wouldn't be too happy with that. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Well I thank the Minister for that, if I can be so unkind, sort of non- answer, because I

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 don't think the Minister of Health necessarily knows what those five people are going to do in the Premier's Office, and maybe the Premier was a little anxious when he indicated the two of them are going to be working with Health department programs. We still believe, and we'll argue this with the Premier, that they are political ad men that are going to polish the Premier's image, and I just wanted to see if there had been any formal liaison. Mr.

Chairman, in the Research and Planning group, is there any consideration or any plans in the works to further reduce the numb er of hospitals in the city that have obstetrical services, in other words, closings in addition to Concordia and Seven Oaks? HON. L. DESJARDINS: There is a subcommittee on obstetrics that will be reporting to me. No doubt in the department some of the people feel that we haven 't gone far enough.

Looking at the example of different jurisdictions, for instance, while I was visiting Grace Hospital I was told that the Salvation Army was in charge of, I think, one of the only hospitals in Halifax and one in Vancouver, I think it was, that took care of obstetrics, and I think they had 7,000 cases in one and five in the other, so that was hard to believe.

Now, I think that the feeling is that, not solely because of the cost, but mostly because of the standards and so on, that could be done providing that everything is not - the question of personality and so on is not forgotten - that you work on an assembly line basis, that's the concern that we have. But the feeling is that the standards will be better because you'll be able to get the staff and so on, and the standards will improve.

So right now there is no direction, there is no thought of changing anything, certainly at this time, but there is a committee that will be reporting and making a recommendation to me on that - a subcommittee. MR. D. ORCHARD: So then, is it fair to glean from the Minister's answer that he doesn't have any p!ans in the works whereby he would see the need or the benefit of closing down and further centralizing obstetric wards in the five remaining hospitals in Winnipeg? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I can honestly say that there is nothing in the cards at this time; that could change.

I should say, also, that there are two things, there is the improved standard, as I said, in the saving of money, it has been determined that closing of more hospitals will save very little money, so that is not a factor. But, as I say, there is a subcommittee that will make recommendation. I certainly would want to keep an open mind about the whole thing of obstetrics. Then I think it would be a mistake, even if they wanted to go in that direction, if it was done too fast.

I mean, this has to work, there are still some kinks in it, it's working much better now, but we certainly will have to work and see how this is done. If it's working well, then there won't be any reason to change it at all. But, as I say, there is no direction, there is no thought in the back of my mind or anybody else's that will make a decision to change that, certainly not at this time. But, I can't say that this will never change in 10, 15, 20 years. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's an interesting reply in that the Minister says there's no 711 thought in anybody's mind.

I have minutes of the Cabinet Seminar, Thursday, September 15, 1983, which deals with governmental strategy, A Plan of Action. Attached to it is the Department of Health forthcoming challenges. Under Maternal and Child Health, I'll read the last paragraph in that, and bear in mind, Sir, that this document is September 15, 1983. "The Min ister of Health has been advised that three centrally located obstetrical units are required to meet the needs of obstetrical patients delivering in Winnipeg. This is under active consideration and will be evaluated upon the receipt of results of the St.

Bon iface General Hospital Early Discharge Program. Implications of this would indicate the need to consider closure of additional units such as are located at Grace General Hospital and the Victoria General Hosp ital.

Difficulties which were experienced in the closure of the first two facilities," - and I presume this means Seven Oaks and Concordia - "and complaints of overcrowding will be rectified with the compl etion of renovat ions to the remai ning facilities." In view of the fact that this is under active review since 1983, can the Minister give the assurance to those people living in the south end of Winnipeg, and the west end of Winnipeg would not see the imminent closure of the obstetric wards at Grace and Victoria? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, surely we could start getting back on line by line.

This will all be discussed at hospitals. We could cover the whole department under Research and Planning if we want to stretch things, but that certainly wasn't the intention of the committee when we made the rules, and I think that we've co-operated, and I ask that there is co operation also. I just finished answering that question. I am not going to answer any other way, I did now. What I did say was that some members of the staff, and some people also were advising that we hadn't gone far enough. I said that even before that was read. What I said is that I have it in the back of my mind.

Nobody else will make this decisio n, th at is not considered at this time. I also said that there is a committee that will look, will tell us how the things are working, it'll report to me. At the moment there is no thought of closing any hospitals at all; that is not in the works at all. I can't say what's going to happen in the future. I can't say, and I don't think it would be fair. Now, my honourable friend will have to take my word for it; if he doesn't, there's not much I can do. But I'm saying this is not the intention, certainly not at this time.

My honourable friend has minute:;, I don't know where he got the minutes of a seminar. App arently the statement - I don't remember that statement - that might have been made. As I say, I know that some of the people have given me this advice, they think we're not going far enough, but this is not being contemplated at all at this time. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, I appreciate the Minister questioning why such items are discussed under Research and Planning, but the document has been prepared, in large part, by the Research and Planning Directorate of the department, and when we're discussing the spending of $650,000 in Research and

Tuesday, 9 April, 1985 Planning, I think Manitobans want to know what they're planning. HON. l. DESJARDINS: This is not the work of these people. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, okay. Can the Minister indicate then, if this isn't the work of the Planning and Research Directorate, can the Min ister indicate if the Planning and Research Directorate are looking into and studying any alternate delivery systems for health care, such as, the MHO s? HON. l. DESJARDINS: Such as what? MR. D. ORCHARD: Health Maintenance Organizations. HON. l. DESJARDINS: HOM, is that what you mean? MR. D. ORCHARD: HMO s. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Yes, that is one of the things that we've had some informati

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-4-23
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 4th hansardpdf 23.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	03ba29c3ca9d4381d6c80400c728c2ea92ef7998

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).