Manitoba Hansard — 10 June 1986 (Sitting 23B, 33rd Legislature, 1st Session)

33-1-23b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Time - 8:00 p.m. Tuesday, 10 June, 1986. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - HIGHWAYS AND TRANS PORTATION MR. CHAIRMAN, M. Dolin: The Memb er for Charleswood is next on the speaker's list. MR. J. ERNST: If I could, Mr. Chairman, ask the Mini ster about Hig hway No. 1, basically between Plessis Road and - well, for the sake of argument, the Perime ter Overpass east. Tha t

section of road I don't belie ve is in the Maint enance budget for this year. Could the Minister advise when we might anticipate some im provements to that

section of roadway? it's the principal access to the City of Winnipeg from the east. it's good on both sides; it's good on the west side of the Plessis Road Overpass and it's good from the Perimeter Overpass east, but that little

section in between there is terrible, and I wonder if the Minister could advise when that might get some attention. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minis ter of Hig hways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, that

section is in for Property Acquisitions this year, so that we can get the required property that's required to upgrade it and it's being proceeded with presently in this budget in the Construction - not for actual construction in the Construction Program, but for acquisition. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Charlesw ood. Could I just remind you to speak into the mike, please. Hansard has a tough time getting it if you don't. MR. J. ERNST: If I could then, Mr. Chairman, ask the Min ister what time frame are we anticipating seeing construction occur on that piece of roadway? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: We make decisions on each of the construction projects year by year. A certain phase can be approved one year, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will happen the next year , so I can't project at this time what projects will be approved during the next year's construction program. However, if the acquisition is completed this year - which I cannot clearly state as to whether it will be or not - depending on the progress up to this point in time.

I'd have to get a detailed report on what problems are being encountered, where it's at, at the present time, to know whether it would be physically possible to begin construction the next construction year. I don't have that information with me at the present time in detail as to exactly what the state of that acquisition project is. MR.

CHAIRMAN: If I could just remind members that we are dealing with Operations and Maintenance; and Cons truction is under 8(a), which we will be dealing with under Construction, and I have no Construction. 743 I would appreciate if the commit tee would hold that and deal with Operations and Maintenance and the items relevant to that, from 2 (

a) to 2 (g), in this section. The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. J. ERNST: I wasn't sure whether it is in need of mai ntenance now. Whether that comes as mai ntenance or it comes as rec onstruction, I guess, is up to the engi neers and so on who make that assess ment. Could the Mini ster answer - is there a priority system established for these and could you give me just a very brief rundown - if there is - how it works? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: First of all, just to add to what the Chairman said, we've got half the department here, the senior staff, because we are not going through the appropriations acco rding to their num bers. We're all over the place in these discussions and I have to start asking for some cooperation in this regard, in that we have to deal with these appropriations in a proper order , other wise we have to ask all of the staff that might come up tonight and in subsequent sittings, to be present. So that's a very im portant consideration and I would ask for your cooperat ion, Mr. Chairman, in that.

Insofar as the priorit ies, there are a number of considerations and we would deal with that not under main tenance, but under the construction program. I bel ieve the member for Charleswood is asking about the priorities for the construction program. Insofar as maintenance, it is based on need and the situation. If a road is falling apart, it will get attention. Otherwise, we have a mai ntenance

schedule and program that has been established for provincial roads and provincial trunk highways, based on the amount of traffic and the conditions in that area. If certain subsoil conditions exist that require more gravel than in other areas of the province, then more attention is paid to that; on gravel roads, than would be another area where they don't require as much gravel. There is a standard that is set, that was established many years ago and that is quite closely adhered to. We discussed the other day when we were dealing with this whole area, that maintenance

schedule can be varied somewhat, if there are peculiar situations that develop on a particular road: severe conditions, flooding, or a lot of difficulty that occurs because of potholes and complaints from the public, and so it might get some special atten tion. But basical ly, that mai ntenance

schedule is there. MR. J. ERNST: Would the Minister then conside r, perhaps over and above his normal mainte nance schedule, or prairie rating for maintenance, the question of an image route. My concern is this, that that

section happens to be in one of the three major tourist accesses to the City of Winnipeg. lt is a sad note, quite frank ly, that when a tourist comes in on the east side of the city and driv es over that stretch of road, it is somewhat em barrassing to me to have to put tourists over that when we are trying to welcome them, embr ace them to the City of Winnipeg, as it were, and encourage them to come here and spend their mo ney.

Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 HON. J. PLOHMAN: On the particular project, as I've indicated, the acquisition is taking place . The meetings have been held with all the landowners in the area and I'm getting back to the

section that the member was asking about. I've just been advised that the staff have met with all of the landowners in the area and, as a result of those meetings , will be revising the plans . The desire is that it will be a four-lane road with a barrie r and it will require some additional right-of-way . Insofar as scenic routes, or particular emphasis that's put on certain routes, we are attempting to keep the major routes in as good a condition as possible within the budgets that we have available to us, and they do get a lot of attention .

Highway No. 1 and Highway 16, the Yellowhead route, for example , are two of the major routes in the province that are getting , over the years , a substantial amount of the budget attention given to them. MR. J. ERNST: Could the Minister then adv ise us, does Tourism meet with your officials to try and work something so that those kinds of considerations are done sort of, not necessarily at great cost, but at most effect? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: We have worked out certain programs with Tourism and we have certainly consulted and worked closely with them in the development of the highways maps to ensure that it is done consistent with all of the other materials and complements the other materials that Tourism puts out across the province for information in the Tourism Information booths across the province .

We are also working on signage programs with the Department of Tourism , so there is a liaison going on at the present time; and we want to expand that and develop other types of signage for the major tourism routes in the province to assist the travelling publi c and make them aware of the amenities and the kinds of things we have to offer . So I believe we are doing that. One of the rural signage programs was the Community Signage Program that was developed last year with the Department of Tourism and Highways. That is being continued this year. MR. J. ERNST: On another matter, this afternoon, Mr.

Minister, you mentioned, with respect to maintenance or an overlay or something, Highway 44, which I gather was dealt with earlier . Unfortunately , I wasn't here at the time. Could you just give me a brief response as to what's proposed for Highway 44, principally now from Rennie to West Hawk Lake? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Again , we're dealing there with the construction program. I did not relate the current status of that highway . I just simply referred to it when discussing acquisition in terms of the - (Interjection) - yes, that's all construction program . MR. J.

ERNST: Oh, I'll bring it up under construction then . That's fine . While I have you, Mr. Minister, with regard to PTH 307 from Seven Sisters to Rennie, is there any anticipated work to be done there? That's the .. . 744 HON. J. PLOHMAN: Again , Mr. Chairm an, it would be getting the normal maintenance treatment and any special consideration that would be requir ed as brought to our attention until such time as upgrading could take place. Then we're dealing with the construction budget. MR. J. ERNST: Construction again? Okay, I'll bring it up under that. Thank you . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Assinibo ia. MR.

R. NORDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier on this afternoon , we were talking about sealcoating and, in particular, sealcoating No. 1 Highway from the Perimeter west to Headingley . I know the Minister has travelled this road many-a-time , and will appreciate the problem that we have in the town of Headingley , in tha t the shoulders on the highway in through the town of Headingley are gravel.

I'm wondering , becaus e of an earlier developmen t this year where there has been a building put up on Port age Avenue just west of the tracks and to comply with the City of Winnipeg by-law , they have to put paved parking in there . Now what is happening, they 're coming from the paved highway across a muddy, when it's raining, or a very dry dusty shoulder onto a paved parking lot. Would the Minister take under consideration and extend that sealcoat ing on the shoulders through the town of Headingley? Is that possible? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairm an, we are curren tly in this year 's budget doing a functional study of what is req uired , traffic studies , on that

section to determin e what action should be taken on the existing alignmen t. Once we have completed that in this years budget , we 'll be in a better position to determine what should be done with the shoulders, whether they should be paved or what should be done with them in that area. We will take that into consideration . MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I know that there are other questions leading up to that problem there of the existing road and the proposed diversion which comes under another heading , so I'll leave that.

But I felt that , because we were talking about the sealcoating, this was the time to bring that portion of my question up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Pembina . A MEMBER: Order, Mr. Chairman , I thought I was next MR. CHAIRMAN: No, you are after the Member for Pembina. MR . A. KOVNATS: But from before supper, Mr. Chairman? Can we not start afresh at 8:00 p.m ., Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: No. The Member for Pembina . MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you , Mr. Chairman.

Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 I thought maybe my colleague was discriminating against me because I was on this side of the table. A MEMBER: We are. MR. D. ORCHARD: That's what I thought. I appreciate all my friends supporting on this side. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I want to pose a few questions to the Mini ster on the Selkirk Bridge. The Min ister gave a few figures that he hopes are in the $19 million range, the estimate is $19 .59 1 million, I believe he ind icated this afternoon.

He said that with maybe some further savings in the tender process that it would be $19 million. What is yet to be tendered in the bridge? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, there is a sequential tendering system that is being under taken in this particular project, which is a major project. There has been a total of $7,443,990 of tenders let up to this time.

As a matter of fact, an additional one just last week was awarded for $4, 11 5,809; so that makes a total of $1 1.5 million which has been awarded including the supply of sheet piling and steel, construction of the piers, supply and erection of the structural steel, supply of the structional bearings, supply of concrete piles, supply of concrete girders, and the construction of the substructure and deck. All of those have been awarded. Still to be awarded would be some minor materials, items, mis cellaneous metal and then the grading of the approaches and the road itself, and then the paving. MR. D.

ORCHARD: What figure are you using for the expropria ted land values? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, we don't have the actual righ t-of-way costs. Obvious ly, they haven't been final ized since the offers have not been final ized with all of the landowners. Ther efore, there would be no final cost available at this time, but it's projected to be somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million total. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr .

Cha irman, that begs the question of the Mini ster that I belie ve, when the Selkirk Bridge and the four alternatives were proposed and shown to public meetings in Selkirk, that, if my memory serves me correctly, this location was to cost in the neighb ourhood of $1 0.3 million. Is that a correct recall of the projected cost about three years ago? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I believe that was a 38-foot clearance and that was the cost of the bridge at that time. That was a prelimi nary estimate. MR. D. ORCHARD: That's exactly the poi nt, Mr . Chairman.

That was a preliminary estimate; it was based on a 38-foot bridge which was not possible to build. lt was an estimate thr ee years old. I think anything that the Minister has said to date will tell you that a lot of the bids have come in below what the department 745 estimated. I know the piers did; as a matter of fact, I belie ve the pier and foundation contract came in somewhere in the neighbourhood of $800,000 under what the department had estimated. So what we've got here, Mr . Chairman, is a bridge that has now almost doubled in price.

I would like to ask the Min ister, since he ind icated in an answer earlier this afternoon that the former Member for Lac du Bonnet had nothing to do with the decision as to where this bridge was located, would this Minister like to tell me who made the decision to put the bridge here? HON. J. PLOHMAN: First of all, Mr. Chairman, the price of the bridge is not almost doubled. We are talking about $1 0.3 million versus $1 2.9 million at the present time for the bridge; so there is about a $2.6 million incr ease in the estima tes for the bridge.

In any event - (Int erjection) - well, the total project cost, and the members have to be aware, there is a difference between the price of the bridge and the total project cost. The total price is 19.5 less whatever is saved in the tendering process which has been over half a million to date. Mr. Chairman, I should point out that the process, as I recall it, was somewhere along the way at the time that I became Min ister of Highways in November, I belie ve, of 1983; so there were certain decisions and assumptions made as to where the bridge would go at that particular time, south versus nor th.

There had been a lot of consideration of both routes, and it was narrowed down on the basis of the kinds of input that was received from the local communi ties, in particular the town of Selkirk, that a northern route would be preferable.

Also, the consideration was made at that time that the two-load lim ited bridge south of Selkirk at the present time, one being under federal jurisdiction, would not be able to handle fully loaded traffic as it was not able to at that time, and we were concerned about building a bridge south of Selkirk that may let the Federal Government off the hook with regard to their responsibilities on the Lockport Bridge, which is, as I said, a federal responsibi lity.

So considering the local input and concerns raised; considering that there would have been a much more compli cated land acquisition process south of Selkirk, because there's many more landowners, a lot more residential development in that area, Lower Fort Garry, situated in the prime routes, that it was best to expedite this project to go north of Selkirk, considering that there would be su bstantial traffic as a result of the studies that were done on a bridge north of Selkirk, as well as south of Selkirk.

So it was a combination of all of those considerations that led to the final decision to go north of Selkirk, and then a num ber of other considerations to determine the exact location which I can go into. MR. D. ORCHARD : Mr . Chairma n, the Mini ster ind icated in his answer earlier on, that certain decisions and assumptions had been made when he assumed his role as Mini ster of Hig hways and Transporta tion. Who made those certain decisions and assumptions up until that time?

Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 HON. J. PLOHMAN: The department, in con junction with the Minister at the time . The final decisions though , as to where the bridge would go, were made by Cabinet. MR. D. ORCHARD: And when those decisions were made by Cabinet , was it your recommendat ion as Minister of Highways at the time , that the bridge go in the exact location that it is now? HON. J. PLOHMAN: It was my recommendation when I assumed duties and became involved in this project that it should indeed be located north of Selkirk, and subsequently, exactly where it is located now. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Did the former Member for Lac du Bonnet absent himself from that Cabinet decision? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I believe he did. I believe he wasn't even there at the time the decision was made . MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, when the Ministe r made this decision and presented it to Cabinet, was it the preferred route oi the department that the bridge be located north of Selkirk, rather than south of Selk irk? HON. J. PLOHMAN: The exact route that was decided north of Selkirk was preferred by the department at that time . The decision to go north as opposed to south had been made earlier.

I would say generally though that the department did not have strong preferences one way or another , but acknowledged that there was a need for a bridge in that area , either south or north . The exact location was not . . . A MEMBER: A political decision. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, a lot of projects made in Highways are political decisions . The Member for Arthur knows very well that's the case and I have no doubts that the bridge would not have been constructed anywhere near Selkirk, had the Member for Arthur been the Minister of Highways or the Conservatives been the government at that time.

I can freely admit that , because no doubt, it would have been placed somewhere down in southern Manitoba, who knows where? That's not the point . The fact is, Mr. Chairman , that there were professional planning considerations inputted into the final decisions at all steps of the decisions. I believe that the Highways Department . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: A little order please. Order please . HON. J.

PLOHMAN: . . . personnel recognized a need for the bridge north of Selkirk , as well as the need to protect a corridor south of Selkirk for a subsequent replacement of one of the two bridges south of Selkir k at some future time. That is part of the subject of the Selkirk corridor study which is being undertaken at the present time . MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, of the four optional bridge sites: two south and two north of the Town of Selkirk; would the Minister care to share with this 746 committee the prefe rence of the department in ratings of one , two, and three as to the bri dge, and four as to the bridge location . Wh ich was the preferred location? Which was the second best? Which was the third alternative , and which was the fourth alternative , as recommended and as seen by the experts in the Minister 's department, in determining the location of the new Selkirk Bridge? HON. J. PLOHMAN: It wasn't quite that simple , Mr. Chairman.

Actually there are three alternative routes in a general corridor south of Selkirk , all of which were possibles as listed by the department and there were a number of additional sites north of Selkirk, at least four that were considered, so there wasn't - (Interjection) - north of Selki rk, I say, so the re wasn 't just two south , two north. There were a coup le of corridors that were provided by the department as being the best locations generally, but not the refined final locations at that time. So they were not rated in a sequential manner, the southern possible routes and the northern possible routes.

There was a general decision made , first of all, as to go south or north , and then the routes were refined further and preferences given , once that decision was made. MR. D. ORCHARD : Mr. Chairman, I want to be patient with this Minister . When the Department of Highways and Transportation made the presentation to the cit izens of Selkirk, there were four routes that were proposed to the people of Selkirk for their comment, for their input.

I'm simply asking this Minister, of those four routes - which weren 't corridors of general area, the y were four specific bridge locations - what was the preferential rating by the Department of Highways in the planning and design area and in the Bridge Departmen t, as to their preference - one, two, three, four - of those four finalized potential locations that were presented to the people of Selkirk? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: The information I have is that the department first did a preliminary assessment on three alternatives north of Selkirk and three alternatives south of Selkirk, so there were not four, and when it got to the open house - the public open house and I'm not sure which the Member for Pembina is referring to - at the public open house June 27, 1984, in the Selkirk Council Chambers, . there were details of three routes north of Selkirk that were provided to the public. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, I realize that this Minister is having difficulty with this issue, because this Minister inherited a political boondoggle and he didn 't have the intelligence and the wisdom to stop it. Mr.

Chairman, I believe if the records were to be truely shown to the people of Manitoba , it would be clear ly demonstrated that the Department of Highways and Transportation - those experts that we pay substantial salaries to for the design of our highway network - preferred a bridge location south of Selkirk, which would interconnect with the - if I can find my road map here , I hate to use that one - which would connect with the interchange at 44 or Lockport, depending on the location; and furthermore , I think if the information was tabled by this Min ister on the

Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 decision-making process, you would find that the site locations of a bridge south of Selkirk had almost double the potential traffic than this site north of Selkirk has in terms of servicing the area. They would find that the amount of truck traffic that was potentially to use that bridge south of Selkirk is more than double what this site north of Selkirk is.

What we have, ladies and gentlemen, from this government is a decision to build a $19 .5 million bridge and it's going to be constructed theoretically over a two-year construction period, in which this Min ister has at his entire disposal, through the Department of Hig hways and Transportat ion, less than $17 0 million for construct ion. That works out to 12 percent, or so, of that entire budget, put into a bridge with a political decision that not even the council of the R.M. of St. Clements preferred that location, as the Premier and others have said. There's a resolution from the St.

Clements council meeting of August 14 , 1984, resolved that the new Selkirk bridge should use the Clandebo ye corrid or, rather than the one that this Minister was foisting on the people of Selkirk. This bridge is an entire boondoggle. The Minis ter tells us that it's only increased by $2.25 million, but he skillfully forgets to add in the additional property costs because certain properties on the lower profile of the bridge were only half required.

Because the bridge is higher, the approaches are higher, require more borrow, more land area, and if the Minister was honest with this comm ittee, he would have a minimum of $5 million. MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. You are getting very, very close to unparlia mentary language. MR. D. ORCHARD: But not unparl iamentary language. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would appreciate if you would be much more care ful. You are imputing motives to the Mini ster. I would appreciate if you would be more carefu l in your language. A MEMBER: Would you identify the unp arliamen tary langua ge? MR.

CHAIRMAN: The terms used - the member is well aware of what is appropriate parlia mentary terms. I would appreciate if you would be more careful in attributing motive, and being carefu l in the use of termin ology, if you please. MR. D. ORCHARD: Absolu tely . Thank you, Mr . Chairman, for your kindly caution. If this Min ister laid the facts out on the table on the Selkirk Bridge, he will find that my figure of doubling of the cost is closer than his figure of some 25 percent higher, because of the issues I've mentioned. There are more issues that are yet to be determined in this bridge.

For instance, if the Min ister would care to take a second and tell the comm ittee what his department's recommendation is on joining, because now we've got a bridge north of Selkirk which is cutting across the Red River and will join PTH 59, which is a four-lane

section of that highway. Is the Minister satisfied 747 that traffic safety and traffic flow can adequately be maintained on this bridge without the construction of an interchange there, an interchange, Mr. Chairman, which the department identified as being accessi ble to a bridge route south of Selkirk, which is one of the prime reasons why they preferred that route over the politically-im posed northern route. Can the Minister ind icate how the department plans to tie this new route and this new bridge into Highway 59 and what the cost will be there? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, first of all, I just want to correct for the record the fact that the cost of the bridge will be spread over thr ee budget years as opposed to two. Secondly , the R.M. of St. Clements resolution favoured the Clande boye route, which the Member for Pembina neglected to say was also north of Selkirk. So you have a situation where you have the R.M. of St. Andrews, the R.M. of St.

Clements and the Town of Selkirk all favouring the north of Selkirk route, which is very important, as the member knows, as the former Mini ster of Hig hways, that the rural munici palities have a lot of input into the final decisions that are made as to locations and preferences, and so on, of the local people with regard to highway development in an area. Obviously , their recommendations had to be taken with some weight and some degree of impor tance.

Insofar as the interchange or tie-in with Highway 59, plans don't call for an in terchange or any additional expense at that point. lt is assumed at the present time that it will be a reasonably safe intersection there and there are no plans for an interchange. MR. D. ORCHARD: That's very interesting for the Minis ter to say that, but then I supp ose when you've got an average daily traffic count projected of 1, 000 per day using that bridge versus a couple of thousand south, the need for an interchange dimi nishes quite dramatically . Mr .

Chairman, can the Min ister ind icate to the House at what stage the offer is are to the property owners on the west side, particularly to the Partridges on the west side of the bridge. Have they been offered a final offer from the expropriation process? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, we did discuss the date, the point that they were supposed to be out of their premi ses to facilitate the construc tion, which was moved back to July 1. In terms of the dollar figures, I don't know what the exact figures are that they have been offered up to this particular point in time.

This is not done by myself; it is done by acquisition people from the Department of Government Services. MR. D. ORCHARD: Who's the Mini ster? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Obviously - the Mem ber for Pembina says, "Who's the Minis ter?" He knows very well that he would be the first to jump up and down and scream in the House if it was the Min ister of Hi ghways and Tr ansportation or the Mi n ister of Government Services who was negotiating with the lando wners and telling them how much money they

Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 are going to get. There are professionals who do that work . I pointed out today that there is a system and process in place where the offer is made on the basis of 100 percent of the going market value for the property, as well as 75 percent of other costs that would be incurred. So it is a realistic offer that is made. If the individual is not satisfied with that offer, they can accep t it without prejud ice to the final settlement and they can apply to the Land Value Appraisal Commiss ion for them to set a value.

If they are still not satisfied with that, they can then appeal to the courts , and all their legal expenses are paid. It is at the point now, I believe , that they have received an offer and if they are not satisfied - I couldn't say at this time whether they have appealed to the Land Value Appraisal Commission or not . MR. D.

ORCHARD: Can the Minister indicate whether at one stage his land acquisition people, acting on behalf of his Department of Highways , wished to purcha se the house and the yard of the Partridges on the west side of - I don 't know the PR number but I believ e it's 508 - and were going to leave them in possession of a strip of land by the river , which the bridge went over top of, because it wasn't required by the department? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I don't know, Mr.

Chairman, the exact details that would have been worked out , but they would have been negotiating, iden tifying specifically, first of all by the legal plan , what land was precisely needed for this particular project. Then the matter of whether certain chunks of land or parcels were not viable or useful in the future would have to be taken into consideration as additional considerations in the final settlement. Quite often , when that happens, where there are unusable parcels, the department would purchase the total amount. It may be the case that that's what is happening there now. I couldn't say for sure .

It could quite possibly be that the initial offer was made on the basis of the legal plan and what precisely was required for the construction. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, this Minister should know the problems that went on with the Partridges . Not only is he Minister of Highways that's undertaken the construction, he's Minister of Government Service s that's responsible for land acquisition .

He's the Ministe r the Partridges contacted on a constant basis, because at one stage of the game, the department came to those people and said, we only need your house and your yard; we don 't need the acre or whatever the parcel of land was against the river . We'll leave you with that, but unfortunately you can't do anyth ing with it because we're building a bridge over top of it.

What has happened to the Partridges and to some other landowners there is that this bridge has gotten so expensive for the Department of Highways and for the Government of Manitoba, that they've had to resor t to chiselling the landowners out of their rightful value of their property to try to make gains on the cost of the bridge at the landowners' expense , at ordina ry Manitobans' expense . And that is ongoing, as late as six weeks ago, because I talked to Mrs . Partridge at 748 that time and she's practically in tears about the treatment she's received from this government. Mr.

Chairman, it was almost obscene wha t they were proposing to her for an offer, an initial offer. She could not even buy land for the amount of money that was being offered to her for her house, her entire property, with the exception of that little parcel of land by the river, landscaped, fruit trees, garden, a whole hom e. The offer was ridiculously low. It was a politic al decision , as my colleague says, to locate the bridge there.

Once they made the political decision, it turned into the biggest boondoggle that's hit the Department of Highwa ys in years, because after they made the decision to locate it there , lo and behold, they found out that downstream, on the north side of Selkirk, this very same New Democratic Party government had put funds into a yacht-docking facility, and navigable waters forced the height of that bridge to go from 38 feet to 60 feet. That's where the boondoggle started.

Once the bridge went higher, they needed more property , and instead of just taking half of the Partridge property and some others , they had to take it all. Instead of treating Lippoways with a small slice of the land , they had to take it all. Mr. Chairman, that is why the bridge has turned out to be so expens ive; and it is this Minister who has ferreted this thing through , this political decision. It is a boondoggle of immense propo rti ons; it has implications on the upstream yacht docking. The Minister himself said that at some time in the future, yachts with higher masts will be around.

What's the Minister going to do then, because he can 't obstruct a navigable waterway . You see, Mr. Chairman , that is why the department was insistent on a bridge location south of Selkirk . No. 1, it met more traffic needs; it met more heavy truck traffic needs. It didn't run into the problem of the yacht docking and having to sink that bridge 60 feet above mean water level. The foundation in the two areas that were picked and preferred by the departm ent , the limestone foundation was not fractured limestone, it was solid.

It didn't require the extensive pilings that are needed in this particular location ; the water was shallower at the southern route , versus this route. The costs of this bridge have escalated enormously because of a political decision, and the sad part about it is that landowners were being asked, up until a few weeks ago , to carry the cost savings of this ludicrous waste of taxpayer money on the construction of this bridge at this location.

When they come in and they make an offer on a family's home and yard and residence that isn't even the rep lacement value of the house, I say that tho se people are treated shoddily by this province , by this New Democratic Party government . This Minister has to carry the responsibility for it both ways because he's the Minister that admitted earlier tonight that he decided the location and recommended it to Cabinet. He 's the Minister of Government Ser vices, responsible for the land acquisition , and he cannot plead ignorance as to the plight of the Partridges , the Lippoways , the Skrypnyks and others .

They contacted him ; they contacted the Premier's office ; they tried every available political route to get this govern ment to recognize what they were

Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 doing to ordinary Man itobans, in pillaging their land holdings for this ill -fated and ill-decided bridge. Mr. Chairman, at a time when we hear requests from our side and from your side, of extra hospital beds, of personal care home beds, of more funding for the universities, of day care spaces, of other highway construction elsewhere in the province, we've got this Minis ter making a decision that's costing us well over five million additional dollars that we don't have.

If you think that is responsible government and a competent Min ister, then I think that stretches anyone's imagination and anybody's power to believe that this Minis ter has acted responsibly and has made a proper decision. As I've said before and I'll say again tonight, there's only one person that's probably happy about this bridge location and he's no longer in this Legislative Assembl y, and he isn't running into the land acquisition problems that the Partridges, the Lip poways and the Skrypnyks are. This Min ister's office has been contacted constant ly.

If it hasn't been his Hig hways office, it's been his Government Services office and they've gotten the runaround on the property acquisition, a runaround constant ly. If the Mini ster shakes his head, I'll simply have Mrs. Partridge document the phone calls and the non-returned phone calls, both from this Minister as Highways Minis ter and as Govern ment Services Minister and from the Premier's office, where they were put off and put off.

Finall y, mi raculousl y, just before a sod turning or some thing, they get contacted, not to attend the opening, like everybody else who was invited who had the right political party card. No, they weren't invited to that, but they were just told about and found about it in the coffee shop. The property owners, the Partridges, weren't even invited to this Minister's sod turning where he had his very best hair design on for a windy day so his hair didn't blow around while he's turning the sod for the bridge. Mr . Chairman, this Min ister is totally irresponsible in this bridge fiasco.

He has cost the taxpayers untold dollars; he has given us a second-class location for the bridge, which the department recommended otherwise. He is quoted in the Free Press - and he may wish to correct this - "Tr ansport Minis ter John Plohman said, • A bridge south of Selkirk is planned, but a bridge also is needed north of town."' So here we've got the situation where we need bridges across the Assi niboine south of Brandon, where this Mini ster is now contemplating not one but two bridges in Selkirk, for the Premier's constituents. Mr .

Chairman, the Minister smiles, but there aren't very many people in the Province of Manitoba, when they understand what he has done and what this New Democratic Party has done in the Hig hways budget and the waste of taxpayer dollars, they're not smiling. They're not smiling like this Minister is. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

I'm surprised that the Mini ster didn't have any rebuttal to my colleague from Pembina, because there were some pretty accu rate facts put on the record which are pretty incriminating against the 749 Mini ster and the government which he represe nts. Not to respond leaves it pretty much fact that . . . HON. J. PLOHMAN: lt's all a matter of strategy, Jim. MR. J. DOWNEY: . . . the accusations made are actual . . . He finds it somewhat funny, Mr. Chairman. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I always find what the Mem ber for Pembina says funny. MR. J.

DOWNEY: We have a Min ister of Hig hways who regained his election by soliciting busi ness through a blackmail system within the construction field . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: I would caution the member on his use of language. MR. J. DOWNEY: Call me to order and kick me out, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: I am calling you to order . MR. J. DOWNEY: I'll proceed to put my remarks on the record. We have a Min ister of Hig hways who fired a Deputy Returning Officer because she wouldn't shake hands with him, Mr . Chairman. What more could one expect from an arrogant individual who we have as a Min ister of Hig hways?

That's what we have, Mr. Chairman, someone who doesn't give a darn about the taxpayers and makes the political decisions to put bridges where he wants as a political party, not in the best interests of the people of Manitoba. That's really where we're at, Mr. Chairman, and it's a disgrace to the parlia mentary syste m. I fully endorse my colleague from Pembina who put the truth on the record. Mr. Chairman, there was reference made to bridge building, and I know that we're in that particular section. I ask the Mini ster to resp ond as to what stage the Treesbank Bridge is on Hig hway 340.

You may have been asked that question. I know that there has been some long-term pressure to build that bridge, and I would ask him if that will be proceeding this year. We have a highway north of Waskada that has carried the majority of the oil rev enue over the past few years to the pipeline dumping station at Cromer, which is now in deplorable condition as is 256 which has not had any money spent on either repair or upgrading. lt is almos t imp assable if there's any amount of traffic at all, dangerous. We have a situation which I think is years past acknowle dging and repair work.

I would hope that the Minister would be able to indi cate that there are plans in his department to upgrade those particular roads. I have a couple of other questions dealing with the amount of cutback that he has.

He has to be the weakest Min ister that this province has ever seen as a Minister of Hi g hways, because traditionally the Minister of Hig hways had a fair amount of authority to spend money because it was job-cr eating. lt was infrastructure upgrading and building, and had long-term benefits for the province to carry the commerce that takes place, whether it be for the grains farmers, whether it be for I

• - Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 the livestock producers, whether it be for the mining industry or whether it be for the petrochemical industr y, that it was all infrastructure for them to use and to generate rev enue. I would hope that the Minister would be able to respond.

But in view of the cutbacks that he has seen in his department and the funds, is he prepared to introduce a policy that has been recently introdu ced in P.E.I., where the emplo yees of his department would be able to take some time off this summer because they'll have nothing to do within the department but hide from public view, take time off for no pay to help reduce the expenditures or else give them some funds to do other things with? lt was recently introduced in P.E.I. where they've introduced a summer layoff program where people can take two or three months of summer holiday - (In terjection) - well, Mr.

Chairman, the question is being put in a serious way. Is he prepared to give them some time off for no pay, because they haven't got money to spend? He hasn't been able to go to Cabinet and get money for his department. I ask him those questions. I have another one that he can respond to in his response. Is he considering upgrading, impr oving or increasing the speedometer or the speed limits on some of our major highways to 100 straight through the province, where we have got some major major roads that are now sitting with 90, and we've got the Yellowhead route that's at 10 0?

We've got No. 1 at 100, and there are other roads in Manitoba that are equally as good as the Yellowhead route. I use 83 for an example. lt's a long unr estricted route that could quite handle 100 kilom etres an hour . Is he prepared to increase that speed limit? There are a series of questions, Mr. Chairman. If the Min ister has the ability to answer, I will let him do it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I just remind the honourable member and other members that there are other sections of the Estimates dealing with some of the items the member has brought up? We are presently dealing with Operations and Maintenance.

We will be dealing with Traffic Operations, etc., which is an item that you've just brought up. So, you know, I would appreciate it if you held it for that item. MR. J. DOWNEY: Ok ay, Mr . Chairman. I ask the Min ister then: is he going to be building the Treesbank Bridge this year, and is he going to be upgrading the highway north of Waskada that's carried a lot of the oil rev enue out of this country? Is he going to give them a black-topped road as they deserve? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, those are equally out of order.

On the first one, I just answered the questions on the Treesbank Ferry in detail to the Memb er for Gladstone and what we seem - (Interjection) - yeah. What we have, Mr. Chairman, is a case where we've been trying to be flexible because the members wanted to be able to ask the kind of questions they have that are concerning them at their leisure pretty well, because there are Agricultural Estimates going on in the other comm ittee.

But when you have the same questions being asked, then we run into some problems. 750 Insofar as the other question about the highway near Waskada, that obviously is something that should be dis cussed under the construction program, under B.(a). I wanted to just briefly not let the remarks made by the Member for Pembina, who is just wandering out, go com pletely unchallenged, just to let him know that I thought they tended to be of the typical nature for the remarks of the Member for Pembina which bore little resemblance to the truth.

They are fabrications that have been cooked up by the Member for Pembina in his imagination. I want to put on the record, Mr. Chairman, one thing clearly . MR. D. ORCHARD: On a point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, if the Mini ster is so intent on insisting my remarks are cooked up and don't reflect the truth, would he like to table the traffic counts on the bridge south? Would he like to table the bridge . . . Would he like to tell us the truth in commit tee as his department moves on? MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. Order .

The Member tor Pembina, that is not a point of order. I think the Minister has . . . MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, then the Min ister better not accuse me of not telling the truth when he does. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have cautioned the Mini ster on his use of language. I do not think the Mini ster will repeat it un less he wants to incur the ire of the Chair . The Honourable Min ister of Highways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the Member for Pembina does intersperse his remarks with some facts that bear some res embla nce to the truth.

Therefore, he does point out, when he selectively desires to do so, those portions of his statements that do have some validity. The fact is that it is absolutely incorrect that the government has given any dir ection to any staff that they should not negotiate in good faith and give landowners what they are deserving insofar as their property is concerned, as they would in any other expropriation proceedings that might take place in the province.

Under no circumstances is anyone that I have discus sed this with in any way, shape or form, certainly not me or any of my colleagues, ever given any direction to the contrary. That was one of the statements made by the Member for Pembina , that we were now attempting to cut corners in the area of land acquisition to make up for the other costs. That is totally false, wrong. Second ly, there were not details of the routes that were ever selected in a prelimin ary way for a bridge south of Selkirk as to the subsoil conditions, rock conditions. That was not a criteria.

There never was a specific recommendation made as to site. Therefore, that kind of testing could not have been done to that extent. lt was only prelimin ary general corridors as to

Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 selec tions at that point in time that the mem ber is refe rring to. MR. D. ORCHARD: I hope you didn't get that from your deputy. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Another point, Mr. Chairman, is that the federal dredge, the fact that there's a dredging program on that river in that area had a great deal to do with the fact that the bridge had to be constructed higher than originally was envisaged. The fact is, through a public hearing process, there were other concerns brought to the attention of the department and myself. That is why the bridge was altered in terms of its construction.

But it wasn't solely based on the sail boats in that area and the requirement to ensure that they could navigate. lt was pri marily based on the federal dredge. We cannot obstruct navigable waters, because the Navigable Waters Board has made a decision that the bridge will not be ar. obstruction.

Therefore, there will not be any consequences to bear in the future, yet the Member for Pembina left the impression that, somehow, at some time in the future, if somebody built a structure higher than 60 feet, that somehow we'd be legally responsible for the fact that they couldn't sail it down the river. lt's totally ridiculous. There are bridges across navigable waters all across this province and there isn't any liability by the Department of Hig hways or the province. Those are some of the examples of the kinds of distortions and ina ccuracies that the Memb er for Pembina put on the record.

I could go on with a num ber of others. lt just points to the fact that he does not care about facts when he comes to provide his annual scolding. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I would go a lot further on the comments, the facts that the Member of Pembina has than the Min ister who just spoke. I have a question. Would the bridge, south of Selkirk, have had to be the same height, 60 feet high, as the one north of Selkirk is having to be built? HON. J. PLOHMAN: There was no plans developed to that extent to determine exactly the height.

If plans were an immi nent construction of a bridge south of Selkirk, then we would be able to answer all of those questions. Obviou sly, when I was making reference to a bridge requir ed south of Selkirk, there is a need to protect right-of-ways for some bridge in the future. lt could be 15 , 20, 25 years , who knows. The fact is that at some point in the future, we'll need to have replacement for the load limited bridges that are there, south of Selkirk - the Selkirk Bridge and the Lockport Bridge.

But that would entail extensive negotiations with the Federal Government with regard to taking them off the hook on the respo nsibilities with regard to the Lockport Bridge.

There would be all kinds of difficulties associated with acquisition and location selection south of Selkirk because it's more densely popu lated and many more residential areas affected. 751 So each particular location has its own peculiar problems associated with it, and we can't ignor e that there would be substantial difficulties in finalizing a route south of Selkirk. lt may take quite an extensive amount of time and be very costly as well. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, I did ask the question dealing with emplo yee time off, and it's under District Offices, and that's unde r part of this whole business that we're in, I understand. I ask the Min ister, is he considering giving time off without pay to save his department some money for those ind ividuals throughout Manitoba who are going to have to keep themselves out of the view of the public because they don't have any meaningful work to do because of lack of funds because of his lack of ability to get funds to do meaningful work?

Is he prepared to look at a policy that will them time off without pay so that they can give themselves probably something else to do and also save the taxpayer some money? Is he interested in a policy like that? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, I'm always interested in pol icies that are applicable under the circum stances. However, the Member for Arthur is very aware, I believe, that the construction program is basically carried out by the private sector, by the construction indus try.

So most of the employment impa ct, if there is going to be any, and I outlined earlier on that there would not be a substantial employment impact in the construction indus try based on last year's construction program in comparison to this year's. However, insofar as the seasonal emplo yees, they are brought on and laid off each year after the peak of the work is completed. This year, the Maint enance Program is extensive as it has been in the past and expanded somewhat in some areas; so there certainly will not be any slack in that area insofar as emp loyees.

That's where most of our empl oyees are concentrated , in the main tenance area. I do n't think that the suggestion is particularly applicable. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr . Chairman, with the major reduction in the amount of money he has to spend, how does the Mini ster justify, if you go to the district offices , the salaries and wages. He's had an increase from $7,034 ,10 0 to this year of $7,568, 700.00. He's increased his district offices with no work. With less work to do, Mr. Chairman, he's increased by some $500,000 the amount of money that is going to be spent in district offices.

Does he have an explanation for that? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, in Hansard, last Thur sday night, I dealt specifically with that. That was one of the difficulties in doing this whole

Section 2 and not passing it, and then leaving it all open to go back again the following year. Did you wash your hands there, Mr. Chairman? The fact is that we're dealing with the increase. Part of it is, of course, back pay increase that went to the organization of profess ional engi neers who form a su bstantial number of emplo yees in the district offices. They went without a contract for a number of years, and there were negotiations that took place over a -

Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 protracted period of time, I believe some 10 percent for that total period of time . So that's reflected in the half a million dollars on the 7 million. As well, all of the other employees would have had , I believe, a 3 percent increase as well as merit increases and reclassifications and so on that are normal procedures. So that would add up to the half a million dollars. MR. J. DOWNEY: Just to comment , Mr.

Chairman, again I reiterate the comments I made earlier , we've got a weak Minister who is not looking after the constituency which he is supposed to look after because he's looking after his political priorities and I think the Minister should resign. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman . Under this

section , it comes under Operations and Maintenance , and I know that the Department of Highways has some associations with Industry and Tourism. I would just like to bring to the Minister's attention , under Maintenance - and I'm sure that it comes under this particular department - I happened to be spending my last weekend out at my farm at Menisino, planting my garden and things of that nature . After the weekend was over, there was some garbage and things of that nature, and we know to leave the site in nice clean circumstances .

On the way back from our location, with the garbage in the trunk , and we were looki ng for a location to get rid of the garbage , we saw a location abou t 5 miles - and I thin k this location is approximate - east of Pansy Road and No. 12 Highway. I'm sure the Minister knows his highway system quite well and knows the location of which I'm speaking. We stopped at this location; it was a comfort station . It had signs on the highway that there were toilet facilities and banquet facilities and places to have a picnic . It was a long ride home and we needed the comfort of a location like that.

We did stop at this location . If the Minister can just visualize this location. There are two little buildings on the location , one for men and one for women. There's a pump for pumping water and there is a barbecue type of situation there . I'm sure the Minister knows exactly of what I'm speaking. You know, this is the impression that tourists receive when they are coming down our great highways, and this is one of the first places they stop because we are only about, oh, I would think 30 miles from the Canadian-American border here .

So we stopped and the garbage facilities were absolutely full , there was just no room to place this little bag of ga~bage that we had. We understood that, because you can 't be there all the time, but the washroom facilities, the toilet facilities, I think the best you could say abou t t hem was that they were atrocious because . . . MR. A. DRIEDGER: In my constituency, eh? MR. A. KOVNATS: That's right; it was in the constituency of the honourable member that lives in Grunthal. But the toilet facilities there were atrocious .

It's not that somebody had just been there and had messed it up; it was absolutely awful. 752 We are talking about maintenance where we can keep a facility in good condition so that people, when they come to Canada, will have a first impr ession: Isn't this great! We'll use these facilities and we'll come back again. But I'll tell you, nobody could get close to these facilities . Can the Hon ourable Minister advise? Does he have a system of maintaining this type of facility not only in association with highways but in association with the tourist industry?

What system is set up so that these facilities are properly cared for, that the wate r through the Department of Environment, Workplace Safety and Health is checked on a periodic basis so that we know that people aren't going to be contaminated by the water supply? It's one of these old fashion ed pumps; it doesn't need primin g, it just pumps. You know, we just wanted to check them out. The barbecue facilitie s were not atrocious but almost next to it. Nobody had cleaned them up for quite some time. What is being done for this type of facility ? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, the member point s quite correctly, probably, in this particular case, to a very deplorable situation that existed when he stopped at this wayside park . I believe it' s a wayside park, and I have to point out , making no excuse about the condition, that it is the responsibility of the Parks Branch of Natural Resources to maintain these wayside parks.

The fact that they have not been maintained in some instances to the degree that they should be to make them desirable for use by tour ists means that we have a prob lem there and one that we should be addressing not only from the point of view of Natural Resources but from the point of view, I would think, and concern of the Highways Minister as well as the Business Development and Tourism Minister.

I am going to be meeting with the senior people of Business Development and Tourism and the Minister in the near future to discuss some new signage programs and will raise this particular issue, and also with my colleague , the Minister of Natural Resources , so that we do get some coordination and some priority and emphasis placed on keeping these parks the way that they should be kept for tourism use. But, without making any excuses, the Highways Department is not the primary caretaker of these facilities . MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, and I appreciate the remarks that the Honourable Minister has made .

I am sure that he can't shirk the responsibilities because it is right next to the highways, and I don 't think the Minister is trying to shirk those responsibilities . I do agree that he must discuss this with Natural Resources and Tourism; we do have to coordinate all of these things.

I would hope that some time in the future - we haven't had too much of that coordination in the last four-and-a-half years of the New Democratic Party Government - but I think that maybe in the future, now that we have had the suggestion, that the New Democratic Party Government will pick up its socks and look after this regardless of saying that it's somebody else 's responsibility. It reminds me of the story of the patron sitting at a tab le in a restaurant and the table is on fire . They are

Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 yel ling to the waitress, you know, waitress, please, a glass of water, let's put out the fire. She says I'm sorry, that's not my table. But I think that we do have to accept these responsibilities, Mr. Minister . You just can't say that it's not my responsibility and turn it over to somebody else. I do appreciate the Honourable Minister's remarks, and I hate to think that us putting garbage from our weekend at this location helped to improve the location because our garbage was nice and neat and it did help to improve the location.

I would be awfully, awfully disappointed from when we go out there, and it won't be this next weekend - we won't be going out there this next weekend because we are going out to Russell for a big celebration with the honouring of Harry Graham and Wally McKenzie this next weeke nd, and we won't be able to get out there to have a look to see whether this location has been improved. But I would be awfully, awfully disappointed if the facilities weren 't at least cleaned up a little bit.

At least I can manage a little bit better as we are going through rather than the ladies because if the men's facility is left the same way I can manage because we don't really have to go into the building, but the ladies' facility must be improved, Mr. Minister. lt just must be improved; otherwise, we are going to lose all kinds of tourism and things like that coming into the province.

I would hope the Minister would take this at heart, and I would hope the Honourable Minister would give us a commitment to see that this particular location and any other location similar will be looked after in the Province of Manitoba. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I appreciate the environment critic raising these environmental issues, and I will give my commitment that the Deputy Minister is going to see to it immediately that the women's washroom is cleaned up. A MEMBER: Personal ly. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: No, he is going to be raising - and I say this - we are raising this with the Department of Natural Resources and the Deputy Minister to do a review of the current situation with regard to wayside parks and the condition of them with a view to improving them. MA. A. KOVNATS: Also, I did make a thorough investigation of the location, Mr. Minister . I am not just talking from what people have told me; this was an on-site location.

I would hope that the water supply that comes from the pipe, the pumps, are certainly tested through the Department of the Environment, which I would think that if the Highways Department is going through to check, they could take a water supply and check it out because we have some problems there. But just outside there was a large hole in the ground. I don't think it was from a gopher; I would think it must have been from a badger or some thing of that . . . MA. CHAIRMAN: I interject from the Chair. Order please.

I think we have allowed a certain amount of 753 leeway to the member; however, he is on somebody else's Estimates. We are certainly not dealing with Item 2 on Operations and Maintenance un der the Department of Highways here. We have allowed a certain amount of leeway to the member to explain his position through the Mi�ister of Highways, but _if the mem ber wishes to deal with sect ion 2, Operations and Maintenance, that would be in order. MA. A. KOVNATS: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.

I would have thought that under Maintenance, particularly with these buildings and the maintenance of these buildings and the cleaning up . . . HON. J. PLOHMAN: No, no, but I explained that it's Natural Resources. MA. CHAIRMAN: We are under the Department of Highways Estimates. The Minister, I think, explained this is Department of Natural Resources. MA. A. KOVNATS: I don't mean to get into any debate with this, Mr. Chairman, but you know I was travel ling on a highway when I got to this location. MA. CHAIRMAN: I am going to rule the mem ber out of order. The Member for Roblin-Russell. MA. L.

DEAKACH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question to the Highways Minister with respect .to Highway 366 north and east of lnglis, east of the little location known as Petlura. I just travelled that highway on Sunday, as a matter of fact, when the Minister and I met at Grandview for an opening of a restau rant and it is deplorable, the condition of that particula(highi,yay in terms of, not only the maintenanc;e, but in .te rm� of the condition of the road because .it lacks rebuilding. A part of it has been rebuilt but about 20 miles of it has not been touche<;! for a long, long tirne.

Not only is the maintenance of the road in dire straits, but ·also the ditches have now grown into trees and . for.c a provincial road, that particular stret<;:h of road is .ir:J a deplorable state. I'm wondering whetl)er there's any intention on the part of the Department of Highw11ys to at least pay some atte 1,1tion to that stretch of r9ad. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: We've gone through the maintenance specifications that are applied a number of times of dragg ing per month, based on the classification of the road; the amount of. gravel that's allocated, based on the ciassificati0n; and the various other criteria that are applied for the mainten ance of existing PR's and PTH's throughout the province and those standards have been maintained. If the member is talking about reconstruction of this parti<;ular road, then we're dealing with a construction appropriation question here. MA. L. DEAKACH: Mr.

Chairman, to the Minister, I can address the rebuilding oLit at the .appropriate time. Specifically dealing with the maintenance though, there are portions on that road at the present time whi.ch are actually dangerous to the traffic, because not only are they lacking signs - I don't know what they are

Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 - but they're just heaves in the road and they'r e quite close together, especially up some slopes that are actually dangerous to the motoring public. I've been over that stretch of road several times and there hasn't really been anything done with respect to those. I'm wondering whether there is any intent to deal with that situation. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I didn't get the exact location, but again, we'd be dealing with the construction program. We do have a number of plans for 366 in the program for over the next three-year period and we' ll be considering some additional projects.

I think there's one or two in the program this year, maybe not in the same location. But in terms of maintenance, those kinds of concerns specifically are responded to by myself, or my office or the deputy's office, when we get those raised by the pub lic or by the MLA or by the municipalities, whatever the case may be. So if the mem ber has specific concerns about the condition of a particular piece of road that needs imm ediate attention as opposed to the long-range upgrading requirements, I would appreciate hearing about those specifical ly.

In this particular case, we'll ensure that the district is made aware and have them take whatever steps are possible to remedy the situation to the extent possible for the shorter term until reconstruction can take place on the road. MR. L. DERKACH: A different area now, Highway 16 - and I don't know whether this topic has been raised with the Minister in the Estimates at this point or not, but I'll raise it and maybe he can clarify it for me - Highway 16, west of Gladstone has a stretch in it and I happen to travel that on a weekly basis.

There is a portion of that highway that is really dangerous to the motoring public. lt is one that was under construction last year and I think ther e was a seal coat put on which is broken up terribly at the present time and there's been some patchwork done on it, but certainly not to the extent that should be done in order to make that road safe. I think there has to be some attention paid to that because if there isn't, there's going to be an accident - a very serious accident on that stretch of road.

I'm wondering whether or not the Minister has been made aware of this and whether there is a procedure in place to deal with that immedia tely . HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify the honourable member's question, is he referring to the

section of 16 west of Neepawa that was under construction last year, and, if that is the case, it seems to be ... MR. L. DERKACH: Oh yes, it's west of Neepawa. HON. J. PLOHMAN: . west of Neepawa, as opposed to west of Gladstone. MR. L. DERKACH: Ye s, I' m sorry, west of Neepawa. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Ye s, that was subjected to an asphalt surface treatment as a temporary measure over the winter, until such time as the bituminous pavement 754 could take place. The pre-tender program provided for the pavement of that section. The contract has been awarded and it should begin at anytime with the repaving of that road.

The condition that it was in over the winter was just simply temporar y, after the construction phase. MR. L. DERKACH: But depending on when the paving is going to take place, there are places in that road that have serious breaks and holes in it right at the present time, which could at any time trigger a very serious accident. The Department of Highways must have within their capability the expertise to repair that to a state where it's at least safe for the public.

At the present time, ther e are concerns and if there is going to be an accident, there are going to be some finge rs pointed - absolutely - because of the fact that it's been brought to the department's attention as to the condition of this road. HON. J. PLOHMAN: If there are some major holes in that road that are dangerous, then we will have those looked at immed iately. My concerns were to have the pavement done by the end of June, before the major summer traffic was moving to Expo or whatever other attractions they might be moving, and there was a lot of concern about getting that done as soon as possible.

I don't know whether that will be the case. lt depends on the contractor's timetable, but he is certainly aware that is a high priority to have that done as soon as possible. MR. L. DERKACH: Highway 45, west of Rossburn, has been slated for some repavi ng. I don't know whether it comes under new construction or maintenance. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, that is under the construction program. The member probably noticed that in the green program that was handed out and that is the construction program. MR. L. DERKACH: Okay, I'll deal with it then in the appropriate place. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. L. DERKACH: I'm sorry, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Provincial Road 254, the westerly extrem'ty of that particular provincial road at the junction of Highway 83, there are six miles that have been under construction since last summer and there's a bridge that has been constructed on that particular stretch of road just at the Cracknell siding. That bridge was constructed through the winter months. I'm wondering whether the Department of Highways has the figure of the cost of that bridge. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Wel l I can certainly get the figure for the cost.

I don't have it right here, I'll ask the staff to get that, and we should have it by the time we deal with the construction program. MR. L. DERKA CH: Could that figure be tabled then? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I will provide that figure to the committee as soon as I receive it.

Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 MR. L. DERKACH: I notice that, in

Section 2, this also deals with the bridge maintenance. Does it also deal with bridge construction? MR. CHAIRMAN: 8.(

a) deals with construction. MR. L. DERKACH: 8.(a), okay, I' ll talk about bridge construction in that particular

section then. Okay, the access roads to the Lake of the Prairies, I'd like to know from the Minister of Highways whether these access roads that lead into the Lake of the Prairies, which are not under the jurisdiction of the mun icipality because the roads go through Crown land, are they under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Highways or are they under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Natural Resources? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility on 482 in that vicinity, and No. 83, and No. 5, but that's it.

So if there are unnumb ered highways in that area, they would not be the responsibility of the Department of Highways. If they're not the responsi bility of the mu nici palities, they'r e qu ite likely the responsibility of the Department of Natural Resources. lt depends on what

section and area the member is asking about as well. If it's Asessippi Park, within the park, obviously those are Parks Branch responsibility, but I don't think that's what the member was talking about. In any event, if they're not part of the ones that I mentioned , they're not the responsibility of the Highways Department. MR. L. DERKA CH: Mr.

Ch airman, it was our un ders tanding, or the und ers tanding of the mun icipalities, and also of the people in the area, that when the dam was constructed that the access roads leading into the Lake of the Prairies - and there isn't just one road, there are many, because the lake itself stretches for some 80 miles - were to be the responsibility of the government. Now, to date, no department has claimed responsibility for these roads, and they are certainly in dire need of repair and maintenance.

I am wondering, because the Minister of Highways does have responsibility for roads within the province which are under the jurisdiction of the government, whether these roads are in fact the resp onsibility of the Depart ment of Hig hways or are they the responsibility of the Department of Natural Resources. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I cannot say definit ively. The Department of Natural Resources does have some responsibility for roads, parks and forestry roads so there is another department that is respo nsible for some roads, other than the Highways Department insofar as the Provincial Government is concerned.

But we can look into that and find out who has been providing the maintenance on those particular roads for the mem ber, but I can't say definiti vely and the staff that is with me is not able to as well. I think that, as I said earlier, they 'r e not the res ponsibility of the High ways Depart ment, but we will find out who is responsible. MR. L. DERKACH: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the Minister of Highways would see to it that this information 755 is sought very soon, because this is the time of year when those roads are being used. They are in dire need of maintenance.

They do lead to some cottages that have been constructed along the Lake of the Prairies, and they are roads which are used quite extensively by tourists, not just within the area, but from outside of Manitoba and throughout the province. So I'm wondering if there could be some urgency put on looking into this matter so that those roads can receive the attention that they require. Up until this point, the roads have been maintained by the R.M. of Shellmouth, who had done it without billing the government at all.

But they have found that they can't do that any longe r, because their revenues do not provide for them maintaining these kinds of roads. As I indicated in my reply to the Budget Add ress, some of the tourists and people in the area have put together funds to maintain these roads, but I don't think it's their responsibility to do this either. So I would appreciate an early response. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, we will endeavour to have that information for tomorrow's sitting.

In terms of whether these roads are to be turned over to the province, the member said that the municipality has been undertaking the maintenance over the last number of years. If they were to stop that process and to ask for the province to take them over, obviously officials would have to go back to the original agreements and determine who is properly responsible for them. But we will find out if there is any department at the present time accepting responsibility for them. MR. L. DERKACH: I appreciate that and I thank the Minister. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. 1t might be appropriate to discuss a couple of things under maintenance right now. First of all, I know the Minister has been questioned on a number of occasions about the maintenance budg et and whether it's adequate. He indicated earlier this evening that the standards will be maintained as they were in the past, at least the past several years. Is the Minister satisfied that those standards are keeping the provincial road system in a reasonably usable condition? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I would say, Mr. Chairman, that generally I am satisfied.

However, there have been a number of concerns, as I imagine there always are, by the public as to the condition of particular roads. I am satisfied as well that there's enough flexibility within that system to ensure that additional attention is given to those roads that require it within the standards that have been established when problems arise. If I come to the conclusion, after rec eiving reports on individual roads, that the repairs and maintena nce cannot be done within the existing standards and budgets, then I would want to look at that further.

But at the present time, I think we are generally meeting the needs of the road system with the present standards that are in place. •

Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 MR. D. ORCHARD: Now the Minister indicates there is some flexibility in the system. Would the Minister indicate whether that flexi bility that allows the transfer of maintenance funds between district offices - the reason I pose this question , Mr.

Chairman, is that last fall, and with inordinate rains in some parts of the province and the same situation in the spring with the break-up that was severe, that when citizens in the area of the Carman District Office phoned the district office to complain about the road conditions, they were told they didn't have any more maintenance mone y, which seems to fly in the face - that's parliamentary - of what the Minister has just indicated, that there is flexibility within the system.

I just want to tell the Minister that he may be satisfied with the standards of maintenance, but I think you would probably find - and I'm guessing - a minimum of 50 percent, probably closer to 60 percent, 70 percent, 80 percent of the municipal councils throughout this province would say to this Minister, upon hearing that statement, that he's wrong, and that they would appreciate additional grading and additional gravel on their PR road system and that the standards that are currently being maintained are not sufficient to keep those roads in useable condition.

Now the que stion I pose to the Minister is, I presume, that the trend line in cost of gravel is still on the decline. lt isn't a commodity which is increasing in price. I pose the question to the Minister: Would he not consider it prudent and a reasonable expenditure of additional monies to put some extra gravel on the PR's this summer because, in a lot of cases, they've taken an inordinate amount of punishment from excessive rains and traffic last fall and this spring? Could the Minister find that flexibility in the budget to provide that extra maintenance gravel? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: First of all, I want to just deal with the matter of the issue of whether the standards are sufficient as they've been established over the years. The fact is that the standards have been maintained. But the reason I said there is enough flexibil ity, that I'm satisfied there is flexibility in the system, is because the senior maintenance engin eer, who is now Barry Rowley, can react centrally to particular situations that develop by providing more funding assistance to a dis trict that may be encountering some peculiar problems that have developed.

That would be above and beyond the normal maintenance standards that are applied in that particular district. If I found that the lack of dollars was being used as a reason why a particular road cannot be put in a reasonably satisfactory condition, then I would be immediately reacting to Treasury Board to ensure that we did have sufficient funding to do that, because I think that would be a rather severe circumstance and situation and not tolerable. But at the present time, I am advised that the department is able to react.

We do not go and look at the strict dollars and say we cannot put a road back into passable condition. For example, when the flooding occurred this spring, we imme diately instructed that 240 by Portage would get the attention it needed. Of course, that was because of the severe water conditions and it took some time before it could be repaired. But 756 that's the kind of thing that we are able to react to, I feel, within the current budget. There is enough flexibility to do that.

If there are concerns being raised by the district engine ers on an ongoing basis over a period of time or by the MLA's or by the municipalities with regard to maintenance standards, then I will ask to have those reviewed and increased. I don't feel that we're at that stage at the present time, although I am not saying that everyt hing is just fine out there. I think that answers the question put by the member with regard to additional gravel this year. I think that, if additional gravel is needed in certain areas, it will be provided.

I should mention that the extraordinary maintenance budget, which does have the flexibil ity, is about 15.5 percent of the total maintenance budget. MR. D. ORCHARD: I sincerely hope that the Minister has communicated the information that he's just given to this committee tonight to his district engine ers, so that the district offices and the sub-offices don't use the excuse to people who phone about needed maintenance that they don't have mone y. That's very encouraging to have the Minister indicate that is not a useable excuse. HON. J.

PL OHMAN: Just on a clarification, I'm not saying that should never be used but, in circumstances where it is warranted, obviously that should not be the final line. In many cases, no matter what you do, it will not be satisfactory. I'm not saying that a district engineer should never say that there aren't sufficient funds just to throw out as much as the person or individuals might be asking for. MR. D. ORCHARD: I won't pursue that any further, because we'd just get into an argument with the Minister as to what is acceptable in terms of road standard.

But I can assure you, slogging through ruts and mud was not considered acceptable by many Manitobans this spring. Can I ask the Minister - and this is branching out in a slightly different area, but it involves maintenance. I want to make a proposal to the Min ister tonight. We 've got two things that are impacting upon the Department of Highways and the highway system. First of all, there's increasing truck traffic and an increasing amount of that truck traffic du ring the spring season when restricti ons are on.

In the last five years, the highways construction budget has been on a serious decline; it is on an even more serious decline this year. That translates into fewer reconstructed roads. Generally, reconstructed roads are not restricted in the spring. So what we're faced with in southern Mani toba particularly, but in other areas of agricultural rural Manitoba, is most of our asphalt roads restricted in the spring, either to 350 pounds per inch of width or to 250.

Now with increasing truck traffic, what that has meant to the municipalities is that they bear the brunt of that truck traffic in the spring as it by-passes restricted provincial trunk highways and asphalt paved provincial roads. I' ve talked to the Minister about this in the past and he has made the suggestion that if municipalities don't

Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 like that, they have the ability to pass restrictions. But unfortunately , those municipal councillors understand agriculture better than this Minister does, because they realize they can't restrict those roads because that shuts down the commercial traffic of fertilizer , fuels, chemicals, to them as farmers and to their ratepayers. So it's not an accept able option, as the Minister has suggested in the past, that the mun icipalities simply ban those trucks. I make the suggestion to the Minister.

Given the fact that he does not have the ability to glean from his Cabinet colleagues sufficient dollars to upgrade the provincial trunk highway system to bring it up to an unrestricted standard in the spring and even if he poured a bunch of money out, it would be several years before that was possible; in view of the fact that truck traffic is increasi ng, re strictions are getting more severe because of lack of upgrading of the roads, would the Minister not give consideration to sitting down with the UMM as the overs eeing body or the overview body for the municipalities in the Province of Manitoba, and working out an agreement with those municipalities which are affected by road restrictions in the spring, whereby the municipality will dedicate a given municipal road as the by-pass road for the Minister's restricted highways, and strike a deal with them where they pay so many dol lars per mile of maintenanc e to the mun icipalities, so the mun icipalities themselves would not have to bear those additional costs through the inadequate funding of the Highways Department by the government?

I think, if the Minister were to broach this topic with the UMM executive and with the councils throughout the province, he would find them extremely receptive, because currently their ratepayers are paying for the restrictions that this Minister has imposed. Would he give consideration to that kind of a program, and make it part of his new-found flexibility in the maintenance department to undertake that during spring restr iction? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I agree, Mr.

Chairman, that there are a lot of problems and concerns raised during the spring restrictions and, of course, this is an ongoing problem. lt has become more severe in certain areas of the province where rail line abandonments and other circumstances have led to increased traffic on certain roads during this spring period. Sometimes it's not possible for farmers or others to make arrangements to haul their heavy loads before or after the restri ctions, and so it does place a hardship on them .

The department tries to be as flexible as possible in enforcing these restrictions when certain circumstances develop that require some lenienc y. I'm sure that these are taken into considera tion. But we have been reviewing the circumstanc es surrounding restrictions and attempting to take some steps to alleviate the problem in the most severe areas.

We will do more in that in the next number of years, if we are successful this past year, and the member is aware of a major resurfa cing project in his particular constituency on 245, I believe, near Carman and Graysville area, as well as another one in the Roblin Russell constituency on Highway No. 45. Two examples where an overlay will be placed on an AST surface, that is restricted. lt's basically the asphalt surface 757 treatment surfaces that are severely rest ricted .

The 250 restriction under the old system or 40 kilograms is the severe restriction that causes problems - 45, I guess it is - for people using the roads during that period of time.

What we're attempting to do - and we're kind of overlapping into the construction area here because those projects are under the construction program but they relate to the maintenance problems and relate to the restrictions that the mem ber was asking about - is placing a 2-inch overlay, rather than going through an expensive process of adding additional base and then a 2-inch overlay to bring these roads up to full highway loadings that are not subject to restrictions.

What we're experimenting this year with a couple of major projects to have a 2-inch overlay placed imme diately on top of the asphalt surface treament, and then to apply a maximum of a 350 restriction to those roads, no more, in the spring period, and to see whether they stand up for a period of time.

Our intent would be to expand that program in the most severe areas where the rest rictions are causing the greatest problems, and over a number of years to alleviate those severe spring rest rictions on those particular routes without incurring the major expense of adding the additional base and then the 4-inch bituminous overlay which would be many times more expensive than the projects that are included in this year's program. So that's an effort to alleviate that problem and do it in a cost-efficient manner. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, I think the department is very wise in attempting to do that, instead of the major reconstruction to do the overlay, and try that, because the Americans have been doing that for a numb er of years and appear to have done it with some success. Mr. Chairman, the Minister, I'd like him to comment once again, if he would, on the proposal I made to him about approaching the UMM to work out an agreement .

I don't believe it would cost a great deal of money to und ertake that kind of an agreement with the mun icipalities and it would give this government a lot of good will with the mun icipalities, something that I shouldn't propose for them to get; because, politically, it would be one of the shrewdest moves this Minister could make, to assist the municipalities in the spring with a cost-sharing agreement on municipal roads during restriction time.

But the real reason why I'm making it is that, you know, this government seems to thrive on the argument that the Federal Government is to blame for every budge tary problem they have; that the Federal Government is passing through cost to the province and therefore the province is hard done by. I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that in the Department of Highways, they have been offloading their cost to the mun icipalities each and every spring, including when I was Minister of Highways.

The difference being then that we had a much more active construction program than this Minister has been able to put forward, and circumstances have changed severely in the five years since we've been government in that there is more truck traffic, much more concentrated fertilizer traffic in the spring and field traffic in the spring.

- Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 I believe that the Minister would serve his department and his office very, very well if he undertook discussions with the UMM, with the target of the spring of 1987, to bring in this kind of a program, whereby you sit down with the mun icipalities, you designa te a 20-mile stretch of road or whatever it takes as a diversion road for spring restrictions and you assist the municipality with the maintenance costs and you do not allow them, the ratepay ers, the landowners and the farmers in those mun icipalities to pick up the costs of poor highways.

You wouldn't be offloading your costs to the municipal ratepayers. Does the Mini ster consider that to be a valid proposal? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I certainly believe that mun icipalities are faced with a squeeze insofar as their budgetary limits are currently placing them. I know they are having difficulties, the same as the Province of Manitoba and the Federal Government and all other provincial governments in meeting the requirements of maintaining their infras tructure, their bridges and roads. We have taken some action in assisting them in their planning process in the mun icipalities.

There has been a committee set up with input from Municipal Affairs, Highways and Natural Resou rces to look at the priorization of roads, of a basic mun icipal road system in the mun icipalities. So there would be some planning put into the road system on a mun icipal basis just as there is on a provincial basis with regard to standards and priorities. I think there are a number of mun icipalities who have expressed interest in that development of a planning process, and that will lead to, I think, a relief of some of the pressures placed on municipalities to maintain and upgrade all of their roads and bridges.

We have introduc ed the Manitoba Community Assets Program in the last number of years that has assisted a numb er of mun icipalities with bridges in their mun icipalities and ford crossings on a 50-50 basis.

So that has helped with their infrastructure, and we are currently looking at a rural development fund program in which we have hired a consultant, Andy Anstett, to review the requirements. lt is quite possible that the former MLA for Springfield, in his capacity as the consultant dealing with the development of this program, rural development, that he will be consulting with municipalities throughout the province to determine what their priorities are for a rur al development program, for an infrastructure program.

I will certainly refer this suggestion from the Member for Pembina to him and ask him to consider that in the development of his program. lt's possible that that is an area that he could consider, but I don't think it is advisable for the Department of Highways specifically to get into another large major infrastructure expenditure program that has not been traditional. We have 12 ,000 miles of road in the province, extensive resp onsibilities that obviously the member has said we have difficulty in meeting with the existing budgetary limitations.

I think it would be wrong for us to get into another whole area of funding to mun icipalities at this time. lt may be an area that could be considered under some program such as the Rural Deve lopment Fund. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I regret the Minister isn't maybe a little more enthus iastic about the 758 sugges tion. After all, this one didn't cost you $55,000 to get and it's probably the best suggestion you will get out of Mr. Anstett.

If you discuss it with the municipalities, and I'm not talking about reconst ruction, I'm talking about using part of your maintenance budget, with this flexibility that you say you have, I think you would find the municipalities most receptive and most conscientious in providing you with adequa te . . . HON. J. PLOHMAN: I'm certain they would be. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I have another question on Maintenance in general. There are a number of ditches along provincial roads that are no longer carrying water flows; the fields are carrying them now because the ditches have filled in.

When landowners have asked the department if they will clean out the ditch, the answer of late has been well, we don't have money to do that. Would the Minister allow farmers to clean out ditches on provincial roads, at their own cost, since his department doesn't have the money to do it, as they should be doing? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite clear that we do respond to concerns that are raised by individuals and municipalities with regard to areas where our ditches are not allowing a proper flow of water .

I would appreciate hearing from the Member for Pembina the specific locations and problems that he has identified, or that have been brought to his atten tion. We will ask the department to respond to those concerns and if they are unable to respond, then I will look at some other innovative ways of getting the work done. Certainly I think it is premature to state in a general way that we would want to have individuals across the province cleaning out the ditches.

We have to consider the impact that that would have perhaps in some areas, depending on what kind of work was done on the environment, on drainage patterns, on siltation of lakes. I think of Lake Dauphin, for example, offhand. There are certainly other implications to having that done in a rather haphazard way so I would like to hear from the member the specific situations and then attempt to deal with those and if we are unable to, then to look at other ways of getting it done. MR. D. ORCHARD: PR 240, two miles north of the junction of 23 highway, west side of the road, a quarter of a mile, is one. Mr.

Chairman, I know the Minister's answer will be widely circulated and no doubt a number of requests will be made for ditch clea ning. Mr. Chairman, can I ask the Minister whether a bridge survey, which I believe was commenc ed about 19 81, and this bridge survey was a survey of the major bridges owned and maintained and built by municipalities because they were on municipal roads over various streams and creeks. A survey of those bridges was to be done with the objective being developing a cost sharing program with the municipalities on major bridge replace ment.

Was that su rvey ever comp leted between the Depart ment of Highways and the Department of Natural Resources?

Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, J. McRae: The Honourable Minister. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I'm sorry, I missed the final point on there. I just wanted to point out, and it may be applicable to the beginning of the statements made by the Mem ber for Pembina, that as a result of that bridge survey, the Department of Natural Resources, and this was the committee I referred to earlier, and Municipal Affairs, and the Department of Highways have put together a committee to work with municipalities.

There are a couple of municipalities who have indicated an interest in priorizing their roads and bridges for repair purposes in their municipalities. As I indicated earlier, that is part of a planning process that would be put in place so that municipalities who now see in many cases that it is an impossibility to replace all bridges that were in place over the years, that they can now undertake a priorization program and justify it, then, to their ratepayers on the basis of the plan that is accepted and put in place.

So Natural Resources, Highways, and Mun icipal Affairs are working with municipalities in developing this plan that would be similar to the dev elopment plans that are now undertaken for many municipalities, would be under taken for the transportation network, for the road network in a municipality, and the bridge network. I believe there will be some good come out of that survey that was done. lt is also possible that the Rural Development Fund could deal with that area because certainly there is an increasing burden being placed on municipalities to replace their bridges.

I think, in combining the two, a planning process so that those bridges that are highest priority would get the immediate attention, and combining that with a bridge program of assistance for muni cipalities, we would have some thing that would be widely accepted and appreciated by mun icipalities throughout the province. MR. D. ORCHARD: That's good that that bridge survey has been completed, as it was initiated in 1981. Can the Minister indicate whether he is aware of any discussions with the R.M. of Whitehead?

They had, on several occasions, I know - they were even meeting with me back in 1981, and that's one of the reasons why we stimulated that joint project between Highways and Natural Resources, to get an inventory of bridges to see what kind of costs there would be to a joint replacement program. Has the R.M. of Whitehead been able to avail the mselves of any assistance from the department in terms of some fairly major bridge replacements that they had to undertake? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I haven't been aware that there are any major bridges that were under taken by the province.

I assume the member is talking about the municipal bridges and, of course, he is aware that we do not have an assistance program. The Department of Highways does not have an assistance program for municipal bridges. What we did have in place was the MCAP program, which did assist some municipalities. We believe that there is a need to provide a program at some time to assist municipalities because there is a growing problem 759 out there with regard to the bridge infrastructure.

So that is why 1 stated that I felt this is one possibility that could be considered for the rural development fund; certain ly, we have attempted to take some small steps in that regard with regard to the MCAP program but more has to be done. Of course, the Department of Highways does not fund municipal bridges. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, that's exactly why I am raising the issue and that is exactly why we undertook that study of the bridges in' 81, municipal bridges, to get an inventory of their size, their condition, the need for replacement, to set up a criterion that maybe a bridge that was longer than 75 feet would be assisted in some way through the Department of Highways.

Of course, the objective at that time was to utilize bridge engineering capacity that was available in the Department of Highways and even go so far as to combine the two bridge departments, Natural Resources and Highways, because I believe both of them were underutilized. Mr. Chairman, I realize the department has no formal program. That was a direction that the study was leading to in 1981 but elections interfered with that. I think it is of sufficient importance to the municipalities that a formalized program should well be put in place.

The MCAP that the Minister mentions is much too spotty, much too inflexi ble a program to provide any consistency to municipalities to know whether they're in or out. Of course, it was on the basis of the MCAP program that I'm aware that some bridges were jointly funded by the province and the municipality through MCAP, and that's what stimulated the question as to whether the R.M. of Whitehead had availed thems elves of any assistance under that program. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, I am not aware of the complete list of the MCAP approvals, so I cannot answer definit ively whether they availed thems elves of the program.

But I should just point out again for the Member for Pembina that that survey was not in vain and that, as a result of that, we are now going further forward to determine which of those bridges was indeed necessary to be replaced because that survey did not determine priorities, it didn't determine whether those bridges that were deteriorating indeed had to be replaced, from an overall planning point of view, and in what priority and in what order they should be replaced. That is the kind of thing that is now being developed with the departmental committee through Natural Resources.

The view, of course, is that we would then be considering a program. I agree with the Member for Pembina; there is a need to assist municipalities in that area. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, just one final comment. The Minister in his last remarks is, in a condescending way, presuming that a municipality is going to waste their taxpayers' dollars replacing a bridge that isn't needed and that, therefore, some super bureaucrat has to deter mine through a master plan which bridge should be replaced and which shouldn't.

Surely, elected councillors who are directly responsible to their ratepayers aren't going to request replacement of a bridge that isn't needed. I mean that takes away

- Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 from the natural intelligence that elected councillors in rural Manitoba have. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I' m surprised at the remarks by the Member for Pembina because it see ms to indicate that he does not have an appreciation for a formal planning process put in place. Many municipalities and councillors are indeed asking for this assistance because they are being innun dated with requests to replace bridges all over the place, and they have no way of justifying to their ratepayers that it may not be as high a priority as another bridge in another area of the municipality.

This planning process is a serious process that the mun icipalities in the Union of Manitoba Municipalities has endorsed. So I am very surprised to hear that the Member for Pembina would think that this is not a worthwhile kind of exercise. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hour is now 10:06 p.m. I have two speakers left on the list. Is it the wish of the committee to continue or what is your will? MR. D. BLAKE: We may be able to, without too many more questions - I only have three or four clean-up questions. I don't know who the other speaker is but MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I have Minnedosa and Niakwa. MR. D.

BLAKE: If we can spend a few more minutes, we may be able to clean up this sect ion. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Is that agreeable? MR. A. KOVNATS: Agreed, Mr. Chairman. Mine won't take too long. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just have one or two clean-up questions here. I wonder what made this program the Minister has undertaken on Highway 9 from Winnipeg north to Selkirk - 9 or 9A - I guess it's 9. There has been some calls in for the condition of that road being pretty potholed and dangerous to traffic. Has there been any major maintenance program there? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Just to clarify, is the mem ber asking for the reply on a

section of No. 9 between Selkirk and Winnipeg? MR. D. BLAKE: Yes . HON. J. PLOHMAN: We ll, it is in a deteriorating situation. We know that it has to be rebuilt; and that is the su bject of the major Selkirk corridor study that is being undertaken at the present time to determine the best way to do that, whether a median should be put in place because it's very restricted, there are a lot of residences on both sides, and it's difficult to get additional right-of-way. 760 MR. D. BLAKE: But you can't leave it in the state that it's in until that study is done and until you rebuild it. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: In the meantime, of course, heavy patching is being done to attempt to keep it in as good a condition as possible until that work takes place. MR. D. BLAKE: Okay. How many roads were lost in the Portage diversion area, the flooding that took place this spring? How many roads were lost there and what is the situation, what is being done to rebuild them? HON. J. PLOHMAN: We ll, I know that when the situation on 240 was brought to my atte ntion, I immed iately asked that priority attention be given to getting it back into a usable condition.

Obviously, with the water it wasn't possible to accomplish all of that as quickly as we would have liked, but that was the major road that was affect ed. lt's back in use now and my understanding is that was the primary road that was affected and there were seven or eight miles of it that were affect ed. MR. D. BLAKE: Is it back in service now? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Ye s. MR. D. BLAKE: The traffic is moving freely through there. HON. J. PLOHMAN: That's my understanding, yes. MR. D. BLAKE: The shrubs on No. 1 Highway, say, between here and Elie, or Portage, what maintenance program is carried out on them?

I noticed lately they have had the little machine around doing the weeds but the stinkweed is going to seed there. Is there any maintenance where they go in with a hand tiller or hand sprayer and spray those weed s? There are dead trees that should be taken out and replaced. I just wonder what program is in place for maintenance of that. HON. J. PLOHMAN: We ll, because of the wet conditions in many areas, the department is a little bit behind on its maintenance program, but the weeds are taken out. Rototilling takes place in there on a regular basis.

There is a standard allocation of dollars to do that to look after those shrubs. MR. D. BLAKE: But the little riding machine doesn't get in close enough to the trees. You need a hand tiller to get in there closer or else to spray them to get those weeds away. There's a

section around the base of each tree that's in an unsightly condition. That's a beautiful corridor when those shrubs are out and in full leaf. There must be lots of unem ployed around who would love a job to go out there in the nice sunshine and get a tan and work away with a hoe, if they had to. Maybe the prisoners from Heading ley would love to take that project on. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Wel l, we are looking at innovation in some of these areas. I'm informed that the

section between Elie and Winnipeg is particularly difficult to keep trees. MR. D. BLAKE: lt's been very wet.

Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 HON. J. PLOHMAN: Ye ah, wind conditions there, salt, I don't know. There seem to be a numb er of problems there and it's difficult to keep up the shrub bery, but there will be some replacements being put in there this coming year.

I mention innovations; for example, we were undertaking to have the 4-H Clubs clean up a lot of miles of road with the 4-H Clean-Up Program which is one way to use volunteers and to give them a little bit to make some money for their club at the same time. it's possible that we could find other innovative programs and ways to utilize other services to assist us in some of these maintenance programs, to beautify our highways. I would certainly be receptive to those kinds of ideas. MR. D. BLAKE: What is the position with the maintenance of roads on reserves? Is there cost-sharing with the Federal Government?

Is the band responsible for maintaining the road on the reserve? What is the policy? HON. J. PLOHMAN: We are in the process of developing a program for standardization of roads leading to reserves, passing through reserves, insofar as cost-sharing on the construction and maintenance program, because we found that there are all kinds of anomalies across the province insofar as how they are treated. But, generally speaking, the maintena nce on a PR is the responsibility of the province and the province undertakes that, the Highways Department. I believe with main market roads, the same situation.

But there is some ambiguity insofar as construction, reconstruction of roads in reserves and we've developed a proposal that we are going to discuss with the Federal Department of Indian Affairs and see if we can get their agreement, so that we have a blanket policy dealing with all of them. MR. D. BLAKE: Main market road was a new one on me. Main market roads are maintained by the province? What criteria do you have to be under to get a main market road? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Main market roads are major routes in LGD's. MR. D. BLAKE: Would there be one on a reserve? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: If the reserve is located in the vicinity of an LGD, it's possible. MR. D. BLAKE: No, I'm looking at the Birdtail Reserve. They have a problem there, off 355. They're negotiating to buy a municipal road, so they can maintain it the mselves, so they have some access to the west. it's a very restricted little area, Birdtail Creek. They have access to the east; they have no access west or south. They have access north and east. it's a mun icipal road, but they won't be able to buy it, of course, because the municipality wouldn't let their road go, but they maintain the portion that's on the reserve.

They were talking main market road which was a new one to me. If the municipality could get that road qualified out to the PR, it would be out to 83, about three miles. If that was declared a main market road, the province then might provide some assistance, is that right? 761 HON. J. PLOHMAN: We ll, Mr. Chairman, the main market roads only apply in LGD's, so that's a mun icipality in there. They would not qualify for main market road status. lt would either be a provincial road or a municipal road leading to it and we have a request and we're going to consider it, once we have finalized this policy. MR. D.

BLAKE: There's a Highway 355 Association that I' ve attended meetings on for some years now, and of course, they want to continue 355 right through to McAuley or to the Saskatchewan border and it goes right through the reserve. That would provide that access, but also there's a river crossing there which adds an expensive bridge so it hasn't been under taken. Okay, Mr. Chairman, those are the questions that I had. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Mr.

Chairman, I still have some questions to ask, but I think the Honourable Member for Pembina wants to carry on with a question that was previously asked. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Okay, the Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did I hear the Minister correctly? Did he say that he's currently working on a program whereby they would standardize access roads and roads on reserve property, and formulize a program whereby the province would enter into shared cost agreements for construction of those roads? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: At the present time, we already foot the bill for construction of roads leading to reserves in many situations; and in others we don't have a responsibility and we want to standardize that so that they're all treated the same. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now, Mr. Chairman, there's a difference between roads lead ing to a reserve and roads on a reserve. Does this program include roads within the boundaries of the reserve as well? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Not the roads that distribute traffic throughout the reserve.

Just a major road if it passes right through the reserve to serve other communities or a provincial resort or something of that nature; then that would be subject to this policy, but we're not talking about the distribution of roads on the reserve. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, surely there are not too many roads that do as the Minister just ind icated in his last answer that are not already provincial roads, provincial trunk highways, or LGD main market roads where the province already has responsibil ity.

My question to the Minister is, if he is expanding this survey or this study with the intent of coming up with an agreement to cost-share construction of roads on reserves, I think that's qui te an interesting proposition when the Minister just half an hour ago rejected a proposal I made about cost-sharing with mun icipalities on simple mainten ance during spring restriction time.

- Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 If I'm misinterpreting what the Minister is saying, then fine. But if the Minister is saying that it's not PR's, PTH's, or main market roads that go through reserves but indeed, say, an access road to the band office or something where the province doesn't currently have any responsibili ty, then the Minister is bringing in certainly a new area of funding. HON. J. PLOHMAN: This whole area has been ad hoc over the years. The province has many times put up the money when I thought, in looking over the situation and certain examples, that the Federal Government should have participated.

What we want to do is formalize that federal participation to ensure that there is federal participation in all circumstances, and that the province doesn't end up having to toot the bill tor the construction of roads, either passing through a reserve or in situations where a main market road leads to the border of a reserve, and then what happens with that major road on the reserve. lt's been up in the air in the past, haggling back and forth, and there is no agreement as to who is responsible. That's the purpose of this proposal.

So there is a standard procedure and the Federal Government will inde ed be responsi ble, as we feel they should be, with both the maintenance and the construction of the roads. MR. D. ORCHARDS: So then the Minister is telling me that there is no intention of the province putting up dollars tor maintena nce or construction, but rather , presumably to und ertake that construction with federal dollars? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Depen ding on the circumstances involved in the particular reserve, whether a road passes through and serves other communities. There are circumstances like that at the present time.

For example, on Buffalo Point, where the road was constructed by the Indian band to the reserve - I think there were some special circumstances for a tourist resort that was developed there, but it was not a main market road and then the road on the reserve itself is maintained by the Indian band, but it also serves a marina and a development on the other side of the reserve. So there has to be public access development. So there has to be some consider ation there it seems to me tor some provincial involvement to service that public resort area.

That's one example where it's just uncertain at the present time of who is responsible and who should be responsible. There's the matter of the Birdtail Reserve that was mentioned by the Member for Minnedosa, and there are several other situations, Dog Lake Reserve where there has been haggling over who is going to pay tor the road portion on the reserve. We want to just establish a pattern or a policy and at the same time ensure that the province isn't getting stuck with more liabilities than it has had in the past. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, that last comment by the Minister is a very interesting one in terms of access to presumably a private or a provincial boat launch at the Buffalo Point area. His concern there certainly should add a great deal of confidence and hope to the proposition put to the Minister by my 762 colleague, the MLA for Roblin-Russell, about getting those access roads to the Lake of the Prairies unde rtaken because we're talking the identical same circumstances with the Provincial Government not picking up any of the maintenance costs to access the Lake of the Prairies.

That's very encouraging for the Member for Roblin-Russell. I thank the Minister. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Item 2.(a) - the Memb er for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can't take too long, the hour is getting late, and I know that you want to proceed and finish this particular section, so only a couple of very short questions. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Speak into the mike, please. MR. A. KOVNATS: First of all, I would like to announce that Menisino, Manitoba, is the blueberry capital of the world and followed very closely by Pine y, Manitoba.

Now, as you enter Menisino on Highway 201 from the west side of the town, there is a sign that says M E, which is ME and I think that's short for Menisino. Last summer, somebody had destroyed the sign, either intentionally or an accident because that was all that was left of the sign and it was in that manner for approximately three months during last summer and late fall . I haven't had a chance to look at it over the winter and the early spring.

What do we do to maintain signs on the provincial highways to identify the town so that people going to the blueberry capital particularly, would know when they were there? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I thank the member for bringing that one to our attention. He could have done that either privately or through this process, and we will endeavour to see that the sign is changed. The foremen in each of the districts are responsible for determining which signs need replacement and they are supposed to bring them forward and make sure that the signs are ordered. MR. A. KOVNATS: Mr.

Minister, I really didn't want to be critical of anybody of that regard, but I had seen it and I just thought that there has to be a process in place that would bring this to somebody's attention, rather than somebody driving by and noticing that the sign was down and phoning. I would just like to talk about winter roads just for a second now, particularly since the first encounter that I had ever had with winter roads of any concern was with my friend, the Honourable Member for Rupertsland when he was living at Red Sucker.

I can recall a phone call in the middle of winter requesting some information and some help in the building of the winter road into Red Su cker Lake. I would wonder whether the Honourable Minister is taking advantage of the expertise of his Minister of Native Affairs, Native Northern Affairs, I'm not sure of his correct title, but has he taken advantage of the expertise of his colleague, the Member for Rupertsland? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, certainly the Minister responsible for Native Affairs has been very

Tuesday, 10 June, 1986 instrumental in bringing together the various interests involved in winter roads a

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-1-23b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 1st hansardpdf 23b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	067a83beb2713d37d969920c92f452ccec9023a5

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