Manitoba Hansard — 14 August 1986 (Sitting 67B, 33rd Legislature, 1st Session)

33-1-67b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 14 August, 1986. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - NORTHERN AFFAIRS MR. CHAIRMAN, M. Dolin: The committee will come to order. The Min ister of Northern Affairs. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a clarification. We had spoken briefly about the Northern Flood Agreement before supper and I don't think I clearly und erstood your que stion rela ting to the Northern Flood Agreement.

I don't want to leave the impression from my earlier response that the only outstanding items under the Northern Flood Agreement are those relating to land. The Northern Flood Agreement is a comprehensive compensation agreement which involves many areas of prog ramming which are within the provi ncial jurisdiction. Some of these programs are intended to continue during the lifetime of the hydro project and others such as the land provisions, which I mentioned earlier, are more definitive and can be concluded on a final basis.

Whenever we have an obligation, we continue to work with the bands and other parties to find the best way to implement those obligations. We prefer to negotiate with the parties to help us develop the most appropriate program as possible to meet both their needs and our obligation. If a dispute does occur which cannot be resolved through negotiations, it is referred to the arbitration process which is defined within the agreement. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minn edosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, in connection with the Northern Flood Agreement, while these negotiations are going on, what provision is there for new licences for fishermen or new traplines or things of that nature? Is there provision for new people entering the field? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Presently all the registered traplines are taken up so the re are no new traplines available. The commercial fishings are all taken up as well and the lakes that are designated for sports fishing are still being fished by sports fishermen. So there are no changes that can take place. MR. D.

BLAKE: So a new trapline or a new fishing lic ence couldn't be issued in tha t area while the negotiations are going on? Is that the way I understand it? HON. H. HARAPIAK: As I mentioned earlier, all the registered traplines are taken up. We had shown you the map where they're all taken up. But presently if there was somebody giving up their trapline, they 2977 normally pass it on to next of kin. So there normally aren't any new traplines opening up but there is an association which would deal with it. If there were some new traplines that did come open, then the association would deal with it. MR. D.

BLAKE: Would that apply also in connection with the new fishing licence if someone wanted to get into the commercial fishing in a particular area? Would that also apply? If all the lakes were licensed and some weren't being used, could one of them be purchased by someone else? HON. H. HARAPIAK: In both the trapping and the fishing, all normal processes apply the same as Grand Rapids or any other area. The normal process would apply in those areas. MR. D. BLAKE: My understanding is that now a fishing licence can be transferred or purchased. HON. H. HARAPIAK: That is correct. MR. D.

BLAKE: That would apply in the North also? HON. H. HARAPIAK: That is correct. MR. D. BLAKE: That brought another question to mind, and it escapes me at the moment, Mr. Chairman; but my colleague, the Member for Lakeside, had some questions on the Northern Flood Agreement, I think. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had, on an earlier occasion, the opportunity to discuss or bring up the subject of the Northern Flood Agreement with the Min ister. There seems to be - well, let me first of all ask the Minister.

In the overall negotiations that are taking place, where do we stand? Are they continuing, or are we working at them - as I think I'm trying to recollect some of your answers in the House - on a piecemeal basis satisfying certain trapline rights or certain other rights? There seems to be a disparity between what we hear from some of the northern communities in terms of where we're at with respect to an overall final settlement of the claims that some of the affected communities have with respect to damage, to loss of habitat, loss of environment and so forth. Where are we at? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Implementation of the Northern Flood Agreement is going on. It is not progressing as quickly as we would like it to, but it is a complex agreement. We had sh own your col league from Minn edosa previously all the complexities of just the implementation just on the land alone once the sites are all identified and all the encumbrances and previous ownership that exist in that area. But recently we have had a letter from the Northern Flood chiefs asking us to enter into a new round of

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 negotiations. We have written back to the northern chiefs and told them that we were willing to get into a new round of negotiations to negotia te a comprehensive agreement. At this time, we are waiting for a response from the chiefs as to how they would like to proceed with these negotiations. We've had several discussions with members of the northern chiefs' bands, and there is a difference of opinion as to if they wou ld like im plementation to continue whil e the negotiations were going on. Those are some of the things that we haven't resolved to this point yet. MR. H.

ENNS: Let me ask a specific question, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Min ister. Has there been any additional land claims settled since we last discussed it in this House? I understand one parcel of land of some 140, 15 0 acres, has been transferred. Has there been any other movement with respect to the land claims that are contained in the requests or on the negotiating list in the last two or three months? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Since this subject was last raised in the House, there have not been any additional lands transferred. There has been 10 8 parcels of land identified.

Presently, there's land or site selection going on, but the process has not been completed yet, that process is going on at this time, so there are no parcels of land that they've identified and said, yes, this is a parcel here that we are prepared to accept. We have not reached that stage of negotiations at this point. MR. H. ENNS: Well, Mr.

Chairman, that bothers me because for reasons that I'm not really aware of and certainly don't accept, regrettably, Northern residents and, in particular, Native residents, have shown that they don't particularly care for or support Conservative policies in this matter even though we signed the Northern Flood Agreement which provided the basis for these claims. But we're now into our fifth year of a New Democratic Party Government who continually receives the support of the very people affected, and all you've been able to do is identify 108 land sites.

Presumably, these are legitimate requests on the part of the communities affected, and you've only been able to act on one. I'm not saying that personally to the Min ister who has taken this responsibility in the last year, but I'm talking about the government, as such, who has had the responsibility of carrying out the obligations, solemn obligations of government to Native communities in this instance, that were made back in 19 77-78 when the Northern Flood Agreement was signed. Are you not jeopardizing, Mr. Min ister, the faith and confidence in these people by not responding to their requests?

What specifically is the reason? If these land sites had been identified, why can't you transfer 50 of those parcels or 20 or 30 or 60? I know I appreciate, and I've seen the map that there are individual questions involved in each siting, but surely there has to be some overall, overriding reason why you as a government that so generously received the electoral support of these very people, why you choose not to act? HON. H. HARAPIAK: I guess as the member has already noted, the agreement was signed in 19 77 and four of the bands made their parcels of lands, or made their land selections by 19 83.

We did not receive our final band's applications till 19 86 from York Factory. I guess although we would like to see it progressing at a much quicker pace, the people who are parties to this negotiation process realize that it is a long, slow process and there are many different people who are affected. I guess we're concerned in a number of areas, that is, where implementation may have an impact. It will be impacting on third-party interests and also we're concerned about the multiple use of resources. There's also the encumbr ances for Manitoba Hydro for future hydro use.

I guess with all those encumbrances that exist in the area now, plus all the previous commitments to the land, with lodge owners and Manitoba forestry having some encum brances on the land, there's just so many different encumbr ances that affect the negotiations. The bands who were involved realize how complex an issue it is. Although they would like to see it resolved quicke r, they understand the process we're going through. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I'm in full agreement with the Min ister, that when you transfer something as important as land, it has a very real impact.

This piece of land today is the Crown's and tomorrow you're giving it someone else, th en it's their s and they have jurisdiction and, of course, the impact will be serious. Can the Min ister give me any further information? Are there other jurisdictions - the Federal Government or specific private interests - existing mining operations? The Minister mentioned Hydro, but again that's a public body and I assume that's a body that we have some control over policy-wise.

If it's the will of the government to allow a claim but I'm looking for what are the reasons why this Min ister, whom I'm prepared to say would like to act, would like to leave his impression of moving with some aggressiveness in this area; why is it being so difficult to do? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The member has mentioned previously that the people of the North have voted for us so we should be moving more quickly on getting this land issue resolved and we would love to do it. If we could speed the process up in any way we would certainly do it; but you asked if there were any private corporations or . . . MR. H.

ENNS: Private or otherwise. Does the Federal Government have any hand in this? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The Federal Government has a hand in the negotiations, yes. MR. H. ENNS: But not in terms of land. HON. H. HARAPIAK: No, the land is strictly within the provincial jurisdiction, but there are private lodge owners and there are private trapline people and there are private fishing industries, so these people all have a prior commitment or right to that land, so it's not as easy as one would think. You'd figure there would be lots of available Crown land, that we could just 2978

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 move in there and implement the land, but it's not that easy. There are encum brances on it. MR. H. ENNS: Does the Mi nister have a global figure in terms of size, scale, acreage, involved in these 108 identified locations? Can we have some idea in terms of what we're talking about? Are we talking about many thousands of acres? - I assume we are. Is that figure accessible by staff? Mr.

Chairman, while staff is researching that, my reason for asking, and I can be corrected if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the terms of the Northern Flood Agreement at the time it was signed, there was a commitment on the part of government to replace four acres for every one that was flooded, if my memory serves me right. My purpose for asking this question is to determine whether or not in the 108 sites selected, are we approaching half, 60 percent, 80 percent of the total acreage that commitment called for? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: The total that they've got coming to the bands is 48,570 acres and the sizes that they have selected are varied from one acre to 4,000 acres. They vary in size; some are one acre in size and others are 4,000 acres in size. MR. CHAIRMAN: But I think the member's question MR. H. ENNS: But I'm not ... to any individual, I'm asking whether or not the bands have selected 108 sites, as I understand it. HON. H. HARAPIAK: That is correct. MR. H.

ENNS: Do those 108 sites represent - how much does that represent in terms of the commitment that we as a government made to the bands when we agreed to a four-for-one exchange of land? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The 48,570 acres, plus or minus a few acres, is the total figure of their commitment. MR. H. ENNS: And does that pretty well meet the commitment? Is that a four-for-one exchange, if all those lands were exchanged? HON. H. HARAPIAK: That is correct. MR. H. ENNS: Well, then, I think we have moved somewhat and I appreciate that. That takes a fair amount of decis ion-making to decide on the site location.

Can the Min ister, in conclusion, give the committee some indication of when he hopes to be able to report mo re subs tantia l progress in this matter to this committee? Can we look to resolving something when next we meet a year hence? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Staff has been instructed to go out and start their negotiations, and we feel that we are hopeful that some site selections will be ready for transferring later on this fall. MR. H. ENNS: I want to thank the Chairman for his liberal

interpretation of the no smoking rule in this committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance dissents. The Member for Minn edosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Well, if my colleague has gotten the questions that he wanted on the Northern Flo od Agreement, as we mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, we're bouncing around and, hopefully, when we get the questions that we have answered, we can move - (Interjection) - I defer to the Member for Lakeside. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mem ber for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Just one or two further items.

The role of Manitoba Hydro is not completely clear to me in the process with respect to the Northern Flood Agreement. We discussed this again in the House. We hear that Hydro has made what sounds, from Hydro's position, as final offers. They've gone to the community with an offer of $25 million or $30 million. I've heard figures as high as $40 million or $42 million. To my knowledge, any such final offers have been rejected by the communities involved to date. Is that still the case? HON. H. HARAPIAK: I've got a list here of what Hydro's commitments or payments have been to this date.

In the area of compensation payments, which includes arbitration claims, $1, 15 9,227.26. In Compensation for Registered Traplines, which includes assistance for trappers, includes arbitration claims which were filed and have been settled to date, is $3,9 16 ,725.07. In the area of Fishermen's Programs, which again includes compensation and assistance for all arbitration claims, is $3,60 2,6 81 .34. In the area of Remedial Work, compensation and maintenance is $1 0,938,378.27; which comes out to a total of $25,229,935.56. That's what Manitoba Hydro has paid out to this date. MR. H.

ENNS: Coming back to my original question, the figure that has been made public with respect to further offers - I don't know; maybe the Minister can help me what that last figure is; 30 million, 35 million or 25 million. I assume that to be in addition to those figures that the Minister just read to me. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Manitoba Hydro has offered a package which was made jointly with Manitoba and the package offer was of about $31 million. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, what portion of that $3 1 million of that package the Minister refers to, would have come directly out of Hydro sources; and what portion would have been out of Manitoba government sources? HON. H. HARAPIAK: A large majority of the funds would be from Manitoba Hydro. MR. H. ENNS: 80 percent? HON. H. HARAPIAK: In excess of 80 percent. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, that calls for another question. There's a third party, an additional party, of course involved in the agreement, namely the Federal Government. I ask the same question; of the $31 million 2979

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 th e Minis ter just referred to, is th ere any di rect contribution on the part of the Federal Government, or is the contribution of Manitoba's portion part and parcel shared by federal program? HON. H. HARAPIAK: This does not in clude th e commitment for - this is strictly for Manitoba's portion. The Federal Go vernment is res ponsibl e for infrastructure and maintenance of sewer and water projects in the five Northern communities, so the Federal Gov ernment's got a comm itment in another - is responsible for a different area. MR. H. ENNS: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I would hope that we would be able to carry out our commitments for this government, or if not this government, then the government that is soon to precede them; will carry out the commitments of this agreement in a more expeditious manner than some other agreements that Native communities have signed with the Governments of the Day or the society of the day many moons ago. HON. H. HARAPIAK: We feel a strong commitment to the agreement as well. That is why we're willing to sit down and have discussions with them and see in what direction they would prefer to proceed.

We are in constant negotiations with them and we're certainly doing our best to try and live up to the agreement. MR. D. BLAKE: Just on this Flood Agreement, this Northern Flood Agreement, is it going to be in conflict in any way with other land claim discussions that are going on at the present time? There have been some studies done where there's been multi, multi-million dollar settlements recommended or asked for. Just where does that fit into the picture with the Northern Flood Agreement? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The Northern Flood Agreement is separate from any treaty land entitlement that is coming to the bands.

MR. D. BLAKE: Is the Min ister and his department involved in these other discussions with Native treaties? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Yes, I had mentioned in my opening remarks that we were involved in it and we feel that we are very close to bringing our negotiations to an end. MR. D. BLAKE: . . . has there been a dollar figure put on those negotiations or something - a ballpark? HON. H. HARAPIAK: We had made a commitment by all parties involved with the negotiations that there wouldn't be any release of that information until negotiations are completed.

So I am not at liberty to make a statement on that to that effect but there is a dollar figure tha t has been identi fied in the negotiations. MR. D. BLAKE: Without mentioning any figure, Mr. Chairman, will we be able to afford it? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Under the compr ehensiv e agreement that we are near completion, I think it is a very fair agreement for the Federal Government, for the Provincial Government and for the bands involved. MR. D. BLAKE: Just to clarify, the group that is negotiating with, is this the group that Jean Chr etien is representing now? HON. H. HARAPIAK: No.

Jean Chretien has been approached to become involved in the Northern Flood Agreement discussions. MR. D. BLAKE: We can move away from Northern Flood Agreement and we've had some good straightforward answers from the Minister. Hopefully we can bring this to a satisfactory conclusion for all parties concerned soon. I wonder if the Minister would enlarge now on a question that was asked of him in the House the other day on the experimental hydrofoil service that is now under - (Interject ion) - experimental study or experimental exploitation - exploitation is not a good word - although I think maybe it is. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: The question that was raised in the House really should have been directed at the Min ister for the Department of Highways. There has been a study involved with the southeast side of the province for transportation to that part of the province. One of the options being looked at is a Hovercraft and I guess there's been some preliminary discussions, but it is one of the recommendations that's coming out of the report. That was one of the areas that could be studied to get a better appreciation for what it would cost for moving goods and services and people into that area.

I've only received a copy of their report just recently and my staff is - (Interjection) - no, I haven't had the good fortune of having a ride on one but we are still assessing what role this Hovercraft could play in the whole transportation. But I also mentioned that the Hovercraft was being looked at in the Island Lake area where there are three communities that are located in very close proximity. To build an airport in each community would be a very expensive proposition.

So if we were able to utilize a Hovercraft in the area and just utilize one airport, then I think it would be a good investment for the government and a good service for the people to utilize a Hovercraft. MR. D. BLAKE: I'm just wondering what benefits there may be with a Hovercraft, realizing the cost of them, compared with the normal mode of transportation that we have in the way of ferries and tugs? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: I guess the problem with the regular mode of transportation is that in this part of the country there's always a period of time where there's ice break-up and freeze-up where you can't utilize aircraft and you can't use boats or snow machines;

whereas a Hovercraft, there's been a lot of technological changes made in that mode of transportation, and the Hovercraft, from the information we've received, it is coming to a stage now where it could possibly be utilized in that area. What we've been trying to do is encourage one of the bands to make an application to the Northern 2980

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 Development Agreement and see if they could qualify for funding for an experimental Hovercraft to give us a good demonstration as just to what the cost would be, how the transportation needs of the people would be met, and to test it under conditions that are difficult for any other mode of transportation. MR. D. BLAKE: I can attest to the functional ability of them. In other areas, in the English Channel, they work exceptionally well but there's a great need for transporting people and transporting goods and vehicles across a very difficult

section of water. The Minister mentioned airstrips and wheeled aircraft, of course, are functional year-round; they're not subject to the whims of the break-up and the freeze-up. We have gr eat experience in tha t particula r area of transportation and I would think we would have to take a long, hard look at hydrofoils or a Hovercraft in view of the cost of acquiring and operating and particularly in the area of maintenance and providing operations for them. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I guess we've had some recent experience on what the development of an airport costs as well.

We have Tadoule Lake Airport being built and we realize how expensive it is. MR. D. BLAKE: Not a good one to use as a cost analysis. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I guess there's regulations that we, as a government, if we're going to operate a passenger carrying airline then there's regulations that we have to comply with. There are certain specifications and we have to build according to these specifications that are put forward by the Federal Government.

So to put an airport in within six miles of another airport, I guess we would like to have some costs for utilizing a Hovercraft before we went to the expense of building three airports within a 12-mile proximity. MR. D. BLAKE: Moving to the regional office section, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Min ister might tell us what regional offices are operating and what their functions are, just an overview statement or coverage of it. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: The major activities of the regional offices are involved with monitoring community council records and advising the community councils, local committees and council clerks on improvements that should be made in their operations; and providing direction and assistance to community councils and local committees on local government administration matt ers such as emergency plan ning, bound ary locations, bylaws, taxation, financial reporting. That's what we mentioned earlier.

There was some training going on with the staff from the Thompson office involved with regional training, also from the Dauphin office, and also assisting and encouraging communities in planning, budgeting and identification of local services needs in the community.

They also are involved with monitoring and advising the department and community councils and local committees on items which require attention such as 2981 repairs to their infr astructur e and relating to the provisions of local services at community levels such as the fire department which we spoke about earlier, water services, maintenance of roads and building, and provi ding support, gui danc e and services to th e community council and the clerks. There's a whole list of things they are involved with in monitoring the elections and advising community councils and clerks.

There are regional offices in Thompson, The Pas, Selkirk, and Dauphin. In each one, in Thompson there's a staff of seven; in The Pas there's a staff of three; in Selkirk there's a staff of nine; and in Dauphin there's a staff of seven. MR. D. BLAKE: Is there no regional office in Swan River? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The regional office in Swan River was closed approximately two years ago. MR. D. BLAKE: Is there consideration to reopening that office in view of what happened on March 18? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: I think the Department of Natural Resources, before they closed down that office, had a good look at the operations and they felt it wasn't justified having an office there. They justified closing it down. Conditions haven't changed. Unless we were to move the entire Dauphin office to there, that maybe might be, but I'm sure that wouldn't be acceptable. MR. D. BLAKE: We know the experience we've had, Mr. Chairman, with the Min isters of Natural Resources over the past 18 months. They've been coming and going like shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic.

What I'm thinking is with Barrows, National Mills, Baden and all these places now, it would seem that there was a service to be provided to those communities and it's pretty remote from Dauphin to look after them. Whether Dauphin serves them or The Pas serves them, I'm not sure. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Mo re and more of the communities we're serving from the Dauphin area are moving into the block funding so the staff person who was working out of the Swan River area had become a specialist because that service was no longer required, so there are more specialized services needed for that area now.

There's no difficulty with covering it out of the Dauphin office. MR. D. BLAKE: The Min ister mentioned moving to block funding. We had talked about block funding earlier. The Sherridon area moved into block funding recently. I wonder if the Minister can tell me what the experience has been with the block funding in that particular move. When was it made, what was the amount of the block funding, and what has the experience been? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Sherridon moved into block funding, I believe it was last July. I think that Sherridon can be pointed to as one of our very positive examples.

They've really handled the admini stration of that community very well. They've had several building

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 projects in the area and presently they are developing some ecomomic development around the community in the area of tourism and Sherridon has been a very positive example of what the community can deliver when they go into block funding. They presently have a budget of 99.3 thousand and they are operating within the budget. MA. D. BLAKE: And they are virtually at the end of their first year of operation? HON. H. HAAAPIAK: They have just completed their first year and they are interacting a second year, their second fiscal year. MA. D.

BLAKE: So you'll have a chance to look at the audit and you're quite satisfied that everything is operating well in that area? HON. H. HAAAPIAK: There have been interim audits carried out and ever ything is working to the department's satisfaction. MA. D. BLAKE: Mr. Chairman, where are we now? We've moved through Local Government Development and move on to Agreements. MA. CHAIRMAN: 2.(a)( 1) to 2.(e)(2) were each read and passed. 2.(

f) Grants - the Member for Min nedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: I thought the Mi nister might enlarge somewhat on the Grants. HON. H. HARAPIAK: There has been a reduction in our grants this year because IVY, which was a program that we had last year, is no longer being offered. It is no longer the International Youth Year. The grants will go to the organizations of NACC, MM F, MK O, FNC, Brotherhood of Indian Nations and the Winnipeg Council of Treaty Indians. MA. D. BLAKE: These are grants administered by this department and covered under here. I wonder if the Minister might provide us later with a list of the grants and who they were to. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Sure, we can provide a list. MR. CHAIRMAN: (

f) Grants- pass. Resolution 132: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $7,442, 700, Northern Affairs, Local Government Development, for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1987-p ass. We are going to move on to Item 3, Agreements Management and Co-ordination. The Member for Minn edosa. MA. D. BLAKE: Under this amount of funding, Mr. Chairman, under (a)(3), Payments to Other Implementing Jurisdictions, could the Min ister just briefly tell us what this covers? It might avoid some questioning there. HON. H.

HAAAPIAK: This is a program that comes under the Northern Development Agreement and it is federally funded 60 percent and 40 percent with the province. It is for program ev alua tion and implementation. MR. D. BLAKE: What type of program evaluation? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The entire Northern Development Agreement. We're going through an evaluation process to evaluate the three-year agreement for the entire Northern Development Agreement. They are presently assessing it in order to find out how effective it has been in delivering programs to the people. MR. D.

BLAKE: At what stage are these studies in and what are the results? Does the Minister have any results to share with the committee? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Program 9 has just gone to a consultant called Salasan, and Program 1 or 2 is being evaluated by the Native organizations. We have asked for bids from consultants and we haven't received any bids yet to have Program 1 or 2 evaluated. MR. D. BLAKE: That's Program 9. We'll get to 6, 7 and 8. Salasan - the Minister mentioned the name there - is this a consulting firm? Does he know who the consultants are or do we have to . . . HON. H.

HARAPIAK: The principal is Jack Lowdon and the contr act is being administered by the Federal Government. MR. D. BLAKE: And how large a contract is that? That's Lowdon, not Jack London? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Lowdon, and it's $65,000.00. MR. D. BLAKE: Who is he related to? HON. H. HARAPIAK: You'll probably have to ask some of your federal colleagues. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sinclair Stevens, perhaps. MR. D. BLAKE: I thought I'd throw that out. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minnedosa with a serious question. MR. D. BLAKE: The Min ister is bei ng very straightforward.

Is there anything that we should know about the other amounts involved? They are all studies tha t are being un dertaken under contract with consultants or? HON. H. HARAPIAK: It is all done by the federal . . . MR. D. BLAKE: Under the federal arrangement, and they pay the bills and it's not 60-40 shared? HON. H. HARAPIAK: We pay 40 percent, but this portion of it is administered by the Federal Government. MR. D. BLAKE: We should be able to get some of our friends in there too then if we're paying 40 percent. 2982

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 HON. H. HARAPIAK: We should be able to get 40 percent of our friends in . . . MR. D. BLAKE: If there are any other questions coming forward, I suppose we can ferret them out. The Member for Lakeside has a question. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(a)(1)- pass? MR. H. ENNS: Seriously, Mr. Chairman, . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: ... I'm always intrigued with these kinds of programs, and I acknowledge that I haven't been particularly pursuing the Northern Development Program.

But aside from the monies that we are spending on evaluation, consultants, other things, could the Minister enlig hten this one committee member about what are we developing in the North with these programs? Could he just not go through the whole program, but what are some examples of the kinds of programs that are being evaluated? What are we trying to do? Are we trying to establish some better way of catching fish or developing traplines, or traditional things?

What are some of the kinds of programs that the Northern Development Agreement is currently active with and that we are evaluating and spending money on and having consultants tell us what we're doing? MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the member might find part of that in the Min ister's introductory statement, but the Min ister seems to have more detail here. The Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I should tell you that most of these programs are administered by other departments.

For instance, under the Department of Agriculture the money flows through the Department of Northern Affairs, but the programs are delivered through the Depar tment of Agricultur e. There is No rthern Horticulture, Agricultural Development and 4-H.

Under Education is BUNTEP, which is a program designed for developing Northern teachers, Native teachers; ACCESS, which is a program designed to assist Nort herners to attend high er educational institutions; under the Department of Hig hways and Transportat ion, there's airport development; under Employment Services and Economic Security is New Careers Employment Services and Northern Youth Corps. I guess there are additional programs under Natural Resources. MR. H. ENNS: Okay, thank you.

In effect, the Department of Northern Affairs has a supervisory or administrative role in riding herd on some of these programs that are, in effect, being carried and funded by other departments. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Except for Program 13, where Northern Affairs does the delivery to local services and municipal support services and also, in the agreement, management which includes fire training, coordination and also the construction for putting infrastructure into communities. 2983 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: The Minister mentioned the BUNTEP Program.

These funds are provided thr ough the Department of Education, who carry out that program? HON. H. HARAPIAK: That is correct. MR. D. BLAKE: Would this be true of the PENT Program also? HON. H. HARAPIAK: No, the PENT is not under the Northern Development Agreement. MR. D. BLAKE: Okay, it's funded out of the university. All right, before we leave that particular area, Mr. Chairman, are there any other questions that I haven't asked the Min ister that he was anticipating and he thinks we should know? Maybe, he will tell us. HON. H. HARAPIAK: No, I think you've covered everything, more than I had hoped you would ask.

MR. D. BLAKE: I don't want to have my colleague come back tomorrow and say, well, why didn't you ask about this, and then he's going to have to go through it in the House. We might as well get it out of the way now. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(a) ( 1)- pass; 3. (a) (2)-p ass; 3.(a)(3)-pass. 3.(

b) Agreements Management and Coordination, (1 )-the Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: That's a million bucks, but it look like the Northern Flood Agreement pays half. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok ay, (2)-pass; (3)-pass. 3.(

c) Canada-Manitoba ARDA Agreement, (1 )-p ass. The Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Under Other Expenditures in Section (2), there's a footnote there that I haven't had a chance to follow it down. These are basically the programs, the majority of which we've covered in our other discussions. We recover the large part of it from Ottawa. Is this our contribution, the additional $200,000.00? HON. H. HARAPIAK: All the cost-shared agreements have an Enabling Vote. The total cost is around $1 million, and we recover approximately 75 percent from the Federal Government. MR. D.

BLAKE: The extra is our share of what we cover. Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: (c)(2)-pass. Resolution 133: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,809,800 for Northern Affairs, Agreements Ma nagement and Coordination, for the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March, 1987-p ass. Now, move on to Item 4., which is Corporate Projects. The Member for Minnedosa.

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 MA. D. BLAKE: This provides support to the Moose Lake and Channel Area Loggers. In what way does it provide support? Does it pick up the losses or is it providing managerial skills or financial support to the tree farmers? The Minister might enlarge on that. HON. H.

HAAAPIAK: It provides the opportunity for communities to develop Crown corporations such as Moose Lake Loggers, and it provides the resources through the Civil Service Commission for the Employee Assistance Program, and assists empl oyees and supervisors by providing training for Moose Lake Loggers, and also supplies counselling. He also acts as Secretary-Treasurer to the corporation of Moose Lake Loggers. MA. D. BLAKE: Who does? HON. H. HAAAPIAK: Gordon Trithart, the corporate manager.

Also for Channel Area Loggers, they provide a timber inventory, and he also is responsible for development of strip cutting operations. He provides assistance in that area. He also provides training for local residents in managerial and accounting functions. They really provided first-hand assistance in their operations this past year. MA. D. BLAK E: So under Salaries then, Gordon Trithart's salary would be included in this figure? HON. H. HAAAPIAK: Gordon Trithart and a support staff. MA. D. BLAKE: And a support staff.

So this doesn't come out of the Moose Lake Loggers operation, so their losses would be considerably larger if they were self-sufficient, paying all their own wages. HON. H. HAAAPIAK: I guess there would be an additional loss, yes. There would be less of a profit at Moose Lake Loggers if they were paying for his wages. MA. D. BLAKE: Which year were you referring to? I guess that's fair ball. I'm not criticizing the logging operations.

In fact, they were started under a good Conservative Government to provide employment and economic benefits to that area and they've been reasonably successful although, I must say, they were far more successful under the Conservative Government than they have been since. But I just wanted to get that on the record that maybe we have to take a long look at the fact that we're not losing too much money on these operations, although they do provide good economic and social benefits to the particular area. Under the Other Expenditures then, what might we find under that? HON. H.

HAAAPIAK: One was for a grant which helped pick up the deficit for Channel Area Loggers, and transportation and also communications, operating supplies, office supplies, rental and operating costs. MA. D. BLAKE: The Minister mentioned picking up a portion of the loss of Channel Area Loggers. Who picked up the rest of it? HON. H. HAAAPIAK: That was the balance of the loss. MA. D. BLAKE: The balance of the loss. HON. H. HAAAPIAK: That is correct. MA. D. BLAKE: Has that been a practice throughout the years? It's not a new procedure? HON. H. HAAAPIAK: The same procedure has been followed in other years.

I should correct the record as we ll. He said it would get mu ch better under a Conservative administration. MA. D. BLAKE: You don't have to correct the record; the record will speak for itself, Harry. HON. H. HAAAPIAK: I think the Channel Area Loggers, the operation was really a form of hydrating when that operation was going on, and some of the best timber, the closest to the shipping area, was taken out at that time and it was not creating any employment. They went in there with an operation which required very little manpower so it wasn't creating any employment for the local people.

Then after he did leave the area, because there wasn't any of that high quality wood available, the Channel Area Loggers local people had to go in there and clean up after because the Forestry would not allow the forest to be left in the condition that it was left in. So although we didn't make money in that year, there was a lot of cleaning up to be done in the following year. MA. D. BLAKE: I don't want to leave that on the record completely, Mr.

Chairman, because we'll get into the camps and the moving of camps and the various other things, but in cleaning up that operation, if I recall, there was a great amount of cordwood cut that, in the great wisdom of the New Democratic Party Government, rather than truck it out in the winter months, they were going to bring in an expert on barging from the Vancouver coastline and barge these logs down to the mill at Pine Falls, and they forgot that in a great north wind, the lake comes up about four and-a-half feet and they lost somet hing li ke 300, 000 cords of wood scattered all over Lake Winnipeg; so we won't get into that particular operation, Mr.

Minister, because that's on the record a few years back. In fact, I think some of them are still scattered along the shoreline. I notice when I fly up in that country. HON. H. HAAAPIAK: While we are correcting records, all of that wood is transported out by barge. Even to this day, it's still by barge the wood is taken out by. MA. D. BLAKE: But not in the system they were using before. HON. H. HAAAPIAK: That's the only way they can get the wood out; there's no other system for getting the wood out is by barge, so it's always been that way since Channel Area has operated there. MA. D.

BLAKE: But they haven't lost any since. HON. H. HAAAPIAK: Maybe the high winds haven't come along that year, but that's the only system there's 2984

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 ever been of bringing the wood out of that area is by barge. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(a)-pass; 4.(b)- pass. Resolution No. 134: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $245,300 for Northern Affairs, Corporate Projects for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 19 87-p ass. We'll move on to the next Item 5. which is Northern Development Agreement - the Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: I wonder if the Min ister might just briefly touch on this Northern Development Agreement. We've covered one or two areas in previous questioning.

I wonder if the Min ister might just bring us up to date on the Northern Development Agreement - Canada Manitoba. Is this the 60 percent recoverable from Canada, 5.7 million? HON. H. HARAPIAK: That is correct and it's the same list that I had read off earlier when the Member for Lakeside had asked for some examples of programs that came under this area. That's the list I read at that tim e. That's th e program th at falls into this appropriation. MR. D. BLAKE: Okay, that's fine, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Resolution 13 5: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $9,754,200 for Northern Affairs, Northern Development Agreement - Canada-Manitoba for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1987- pass. We now move to Item 6. which is Expenditures Related to Capital - the Member for Minn edosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Under Capital, the Minister could provide us with a breakdown of that. If he doesn't have it handy, he could provide it to us later. Are there any projects that might be of particular interest to us under this item that he'd want to answer questions on now?

I have one or two questions under

section (b), Mr. Chairman, too. HON. H. HARAPIAK: There are no projects that really stick out, but we will provide a list to you later of all the projects there are. MR. D. BLAKE: I'm just wondering, are there any care home facilities under this capital project or - they would all be covered under Health if there were. HON. H. HARAPIAK: No, just related to municipal services. MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(a)( 1) - pass; 6.(a)(2)-pass. 6.(b) - the Member for Min nedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: That Capital Projects has increased by about roughly $3 million and I noticed there's a million less under the Flood Agreement.

The Mi nister might just enlarge on those two items for us. You haven't stuck a water bomber or anything in here? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Last year Northern Affairs expended about $4 million in community infrastructure and this money was cost-shared with the feds and therefore the provincial share was 1.6 million. In 1986- 87, Northern Affairs will spend 3.7 with no recovery, so the net provincial cost is 3.7. It just shifted to a different line because there's no recovery from the Federal Government. The non-recurring cost is the Maniago River bridge was a one-time cost.

There was a budget last year of 1. 3 and now we feel that an estimated cost today would be $300,000.00. MR. D. BLAKE: Where is the bridge? HON. H. HARAPIAK: The Maniago River bridge. MR. D. BLAKE: That's over the Maniago River, eh? HON. H. HARAPIAK: It's quite costly. MR. D. BLAKE: I just want to make sure it was in the right place. HON. H. HARAPIAK: That's another commitment under the Northern Flood Agreement we spoke about earlier. The Maniago River bridge is one of the commitments of that agreement. That was part of the provincial commitment. MR. D. BLAKE: That's fine, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: (b) (1) - pass; (b)(2)-pass - the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I appeciate that I'm out of order in respect to this specific item, but I know the generosity of the Minister will allow me to ask this question anyway. I noted at the time that one Mr. Terry Sargeant became an em ployee of this government, either under contract or within the Civil Service, my question simply is, it was designated that he had special interest with respect to Northern Affairs. Is he working for the Department of Northern Affairs either under contract or on staff? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Terry Sargeant, who you are correct, he came here with many qual ifications, is presently working for the department as a Director of Research and Planning. MR. H. ENNS: My questions were, if I recall the original engagement of Mr. Sargeant was as an advisor to the Premier's Office with special interest to Northern Affairs. That no longer is the case or may not ever have been the case. He is with the Department of Northern Affairs and paid for by the Department of Northern Affairs? HON. H. HARAPIAK: That is correct. He is Director of Planning and Research within the Department of Northern Affairs. MR.

H. ENNS: I would only comment that I wish the Min ister would keep him busier because I keep running into him in elections in the streets of Stonewall, but other than that, I certainly agree with the Min ister. 2985

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 MR. D. BLAKE: I just had a question. I wondered if the position was boarded, a Civil Service board position or was a competition held for it or was it an appointment by the Min ister? HON. H. HARAPIAK: He filled it under a term position. When he first came to the department he was on a term position and then he filled it as an Acting Director of Planning and Research, and when the present became the ADM, then he filled it on a permanent position. MR. D. BLAKE: So there's no competition? HON. H. HARAPIAK: No. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Resolution 136: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceeding $5,354,500 for Northern Affairs, Expenditures Related to Capital for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 19 87- pass. We now return to Item 1. (

a) Min ister's Salary - (Interjection) - Oh yes, I thank the staff for our Min ister's Salary - the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr . Chairman, I just have a few comments to make, and again I apologize for not having been here at the outset of the discussions of this Minister's and this department's Estimates.

But it would seem to me that this department could very likely face a very serious challenge in the not-too-distant future, and I'm speaking about the future welfare of Manfor and its direct impact on operations that I know this department is corr ectly, deeply concerned about; operations such as the Channel Loggers, Moose Lake Loggers. I'm also aware that this Min ister and this department hasn't got the direct responsibility with respect to the future operation of Manfor, but we have seen just in the last weeks, a sharp curtailment of employment opportunities at Manfor.

I'm not going to take this opportunity to sugg est why. We were given the reasons by the board and by the Minister, but I think this Minister must be aware and his department must be aware that with the Min ister of Finance sitting with us at this table, that the future of Manfor is a very serious question facing this government, facing any government and it would impact very seriously on the responsibilities of this department; should, in fact, that major employer and the major dollars that are generated through that operation for some reason or other cease.

I just sugge st in th e cl osing mome nts of this department's consideration of their Estimates, I would assume that it's a responsibility of any Minister of Northern Affairs to plan for contingency measures, to have them in place. There are no easy answers. I know that successive governments have tried, and no doubt will continue to try to find a solution, a resolution to the Manfor situation; hopefully to bring it to a better financial situation.

But I think with the difficulties that kind of an operation is facing, the kind of international trade competition it's facing, and just th e stark realization th at with the best of will, a government, a Mi nister of Finance will have to reach a decision with respect to that operation. The impact on the communities of Northern Manitoba will be 10 times, 100 times more severe than a similar situation where there are at least numerous other options available, as difficult as it is to see any plant closure take place. I'm sure it wasn't particularly easy for this government to divest itself of Flyer Industries.

Hopefully, under the best of terms, tha t will continue some future employment, but the loss of employment opportunities - those that we have already lost with the reduced staff of Flyer Industries in a city of 600,000 or in a city like Winnipeg; as harsh and as difficult that is on the individual family's concerned - does not have the same impact as a loss of job opportunities of the scale we're talking about at Manfor , would have in Northern Manitoba.

It would seem to me that this Minister would challenge his staff and himself very seriously, to worry about how that can be turned around in the first instance; and secondly, to certainly plan for whatever contingency measures may have to be put in place should that happen. I wanted to, or could have asked, I suppose, had the present layoff which was announced just last week , how that will, for instance, affect the coming year's operations of those two operations that we talk about which the department's involved in, Channel Loggers and Moose Lake Loggers.

But I'm making this comment on the Minister's Salary in a general term. It seems to me that just as every department, every Min ister faces their own and special unique concerns. The Min ister of Agriculture has many concerns; namely, the overall grain situation that's affecting - not just the farmers in Manitoba but farmers throughout Canada and Australia - all those who are facing a very serious situation in that primary industry.

To me, one of the biggest problems that this Min ister may find ending up in his lap has to do with the future of Manfor and how it could affect a good portion, not all, but it would be a substantial concern to the Minister of Northern Affairs in Manitoba in how to react to that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HON. H. HARAPIAK: The mem ber has a good understanding of how the North is affected by Manfor. I know that you have an appreciation for the funding that has been put into Manfor to make it a viable operation.

We are convinced that it can be a viable operation with the modernization that has gone on, but we also are aware of what effects the tariffs could have on wood operation and lumber operation at Manfor. So we're very cognizant of the dangers that are ahead of us. We're hopeful that the tariffs don't come on and possibly ther e will be slight recovery in housing developments in the United States and it would take a greater portion of our production of the woodlands division or the lumber division and they would help the cause there.

But if it does go ahead, there will have to be a responsibility for the Department of Northern Affairs to coordinate some training efforts for the people who are living in there, because we recognize there are many communities surrounding The Pas which would be affected, and we recognize that there's too much of a reduction at the lumber division and Moose Lake Loggers could be affected as well to a greater 2986

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 degree than they are now. So we recognize that we as a department will have to play more of a coordinating role than we have in the past in that immediate area and bring in some training for the people who are affected. MR. D. BLAKE: Just before we wind up, I want to make one comment on that, Mr. Chairman. I know the Mi nister is well aware of the concept behind the origin of Manfor, why it was established in that particular area, to cover many of the areas that he well knows the chronic unemployment situation and heavy welfare and things of that nature.

But it would seem to me, and I'm not that up-to date on the situation with the problems in the forest industry in British Columbia, there seems now to be a rush to settle a great num ber of the contracts that are being negotiated out there because of the heavy demand for timber products. It would seem to be such an inopportune time for us to be caught when there could be a boom market showing up on the horizon and for us to be caught without product. It's going to reflect, I'm sure, in the operations of Manfor and it's most unfortunate that it's happened.

We're not really sure why but we'll find that out I suppose when next we get Manfor before the committee. On the Minister's Salary, Mr. Chairman, I notice, going through the Estimate books, that the Ministers' Salaries have ju mped from $1 9,600 to $20,600.00. Was this an incremental increase in the past year for all Cabinet Ministers? HON. H. HARAPIAK: That is correct. MR. D. BLAKE: I haven't noticed our stipend increasing accordingly, Mr. Chairman.

As I mentioned in the reply to the opening remarks, I'm sorry that our chief critic is not here and I'm sure he is because there are probably questions that we haven't covered that he may like to ask. I'm sure the Minister's door is always open and he can always get answers to those questions when he returns to the Chamber. With that we have no further questions on the Estimates, Mr. Chairman. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I just regret that the chief critic couldn't be here, as well.

We had a discussion with him and had a discussion with staff and he was very well prepared for Estimates and I know that he would have done an excellent job which I regret he wasn't here, as well. But I want to thank you for your cooperation in the Estimates process and I also want to thank staff for all the work they have done in preparing us for Estimates. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (a)-pass. Resolution 131: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $930,700 for Northern Affairs, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1987-p ass.

Thank you all. Committee rise. SUPPLY - NATURAL RESOURCES MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Committee please come to order. We have been considering the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources. We are now on Item 3.(a)( 1) Engineering and Construction, Administration, Salaries; 3.(a)

(2) Other Expenditures; 3.(a)

(3) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations. The Mem ber for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I like the way you call order. It's appropriate. To the Minister, Mr. Chairman, I thought we had an understanding before the adjournment at 5:30, that possibly in the area of Engineering and Construction and Water Resources, we could sort of combine the both because it's overlapping and it's very hard to decipher which is what.

As I indicated to the Minister before we left, that I think the municipal people, to some degree, have some confusion in that respect as well as to whom to contact because to them it's all a matter of water resources. But seeing we have sort of come to an agreement that we can cover both, because the questions that will be raised here, by myself as well as other colleagues, all deal basically with water resources and the engi neering and construction end of it. I just wonder whether the Minister possibly has got his capital program available at this time too.

If that is the case, then I'd like to maybe ask whether that could be distributed, so members on this side can look at what programs basically are on track, because we have various questions along the line of various programs. I'd like to start off with, as I indicated before, under Engineering and Construction, where there's reference made to the diking, flood protection within various areas. I know that the agreement two years ago terminated with the Federal Government in terms of the Flood Protection Program in the Red River Valley.

The one question I'd like to raise right now, at the time when we were government there was cost-benefit ratio studies done regarding the flood protection and diking around the communities of Carman, Gimli and Ste. Rose. I believe that was sort of the priority that was staged at that time and the cost-benefit ratio benefits: that Carman was probably the first community that should receive flood protection; that Gimli should be the second and Ste. Rose should be the third, based on those figures.

I want to raise the question with the Min ister as to the establishment of these cost-benefit ratio studies because obviously there must have been a change in these things, because we now have Gimli and Ste. Rose who have been receiving consideration and Carman is still without that kind of protection. The member for that area there, Mr. Orchard, asked me to raise that question and establish how were the priorities changed? Because when we left government in 1981, the priorities were on the basis, as I indicated before: Carman, Gimli and Ste. Rose and that seems to have changed.

I wonder if he Min ister could clarify that? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. 2987

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 HON. L. HARAPIAK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to indicate to the critic that we did have a meeting with Mr. Murta shortly after I came to office to discuss the Carman Project, and it is here in the discussions with Mr. Murta that Carman had never been included in the Federal-Provincial Agreement. We were discussing the possible basis for that particular project to become part of perhaps some future agreement between the Federal and the Provincial Governments.

So to the best of my knowledge, it never was included in the negotiated agreements between the Federal and the Provincial Governments. It is a large project. It is a serious matter for the community of Carman, and we did have a meeting with the town council and I believe some representation from the R.M. subsequent to the meeting with Mr. Murta, but some changes, of course, have come about in the responsibility that Mr. Murta has, and I regret that frankly because I sensed on his part a real desire and a real commitment to secure federal participation for that program.

But with some change in players, we will have to look at that issue again. Certain ly, we would want to enter in to tho se discussions, recognizing that the project related to Carman is a very large undertaking. The projected costs in tha t are very high. We will carry on in those discussions. I do have, I should tell you, the specific information to distribute with respect to the capital project. If the critic wanted to receive that information at this time, I would be prepared to have it distributed and we could pursue the items.

Or if you wanted to pursue discussion on this item, I would be quite prepared to do that as well. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd like to ask the Minister whether he would distribute the capital projects. I don't know how many copies he has, but certainly I believe that my colleagues would be very interested in having a look at that, so they can look if there's anything on there at all which - I'm sure - I anticipate there's going to be major disappointments because of the cutbacks within the department in terms of how they priorize their spendings.

But we'd certainly like to have a look at it so at least members on this side can acquaint themselves with the projects that are on stream or are not on stream. Coming back to the situation between Carman, Gimli and Ste. Rose, my understanding was, as I indicated before, that the Carman Diversion cost-benefit ratio was higher than it was in Gimli and Ste. Rose. I want to ask also whether there was federal participation in the Gimli and Ste. Rose diking that took place, and I want the Minister to explain, where did the priorities change? At what time and what influenced the changes of those priorities? HON. L.

HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that, in order for a project to be included for sharing between the Federal and the Provincial Government, the benefit-cost ratio has to be in excess of one. Now, that was the case for Ste. Rose, so Ste. Rose was included in the project. I'm told that the benefit-cost ratio for Gimli was less than that, and there is no federal sharing in that particular project. The same is true for the Carman project. The benefit-cost ratio was less than one, therefore it could not be included under the existing program. That was the point we were discussing with Mr.

Murta, whether there might be another agreement which would be prepared to look at other projects. I was given some additional information here that the terms of that agreement have been extended to 1989 and the value of the agreement now is $6.1 million, an increase from the 4.5. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, the Mi nister still has not explained where the change in priorities came about.

I'm suspect that possibly these were political decisions that were made within the department somewhere along the line, or with the government, because the Carman project had priority and the Min ister just indicated, and maybe he can correct me if I'm wrong, but that the Gimli diking was strictly provincial, no federal participation in that. Am I correct in my assumption; is that what the Min ister was saying? There was no federal participation in the Gimli diking but there was federal participation in the Ste. Rose one.

As I indicated, in'81 at that time, the cost benefit ratio for the Carman project was the most beneficial. Where did that change? I have some concern about how these cost benefit ratio studies take place because it's happened in the past, without holding any of the department suspect, seemingly they can arrange a cost benefit ratio study and the statistics come up almost at the desire of the Government of the Day.

I want to come back to this Carman thing where the priorities were changed, but just to illustrate how some of these things change, if there was a change in the cost benefit ratio from'81 on, how come that happened? We also had a cost benefit ratio done on the Rat River project, which has been sort of worked on and promoted for a num ber of years. The Agriculture Department did a cost benefit ratio in terms of how much benefit would come out from correcting the flooding situation there. At that time, when we were government, the same department worked out a ratio and it didn't look feasible.

They have now, since that time, done some more studies again. Now the Department of Agriculture comes up and says, well, now it looks like it's feasible, just on the agricultural end of it, never mind the flooding impact. That is why I want to know how come there can be all of a sudden changes, like, for example, the Carman situation had top priority; we've had Ste. Rose and Gimli done sinc e tha t time, one with federal participation, one without. If these are political decisions, that's fine, we'll accept that.

But then we want to know, is it a matter of how you jockey the cost benefit ratios or how do you establish that all of a sudden there's been a change and the other two projects have been undertaken and Carman is still in the mill? Now we're talking of almost $2 million higher cost in this thing. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate that the guidelines for calculating the cost benefit ratios are federal guide lines and they are applied consistently across Canada. On the basis of those federal guidelines, the cost benefit ratio for the Carman project was, I believe, .79.

There was consideration of the project under provincial criteria and the cost benefit was, I 2988

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 understand, in excess of 1, but for the purposes of that federal cost-sharing, it must be considered on the basis of the federal guidelines, so it has never been above that level. Certainly in terms of priority, it was considered and it is still considered to be a serious issue that has to be addressed. It was considered, but after applying the guidelines for determining the cost benefit ratio and having it come out at . 79 and given the magnitude of the project, it was not included in the agreement. Now, I wanted to comment briefly on the Gimli project.

The Gimli project is not on line and I may have left a false impr ession in my earlier comm ents when I indicated that the cost benefit ratio was less than 1 and it would have to be provincially funded - if it were to proceed - but there is no commitment to go ahead on the Gimli project. Ste. Rose, the cost benefit ratio on that is in excess of 1. There are some issues to be addressed right now in terms of land acquisition. Those are basically the comments that I wanted to make in regard to those projects. I have difficulty in accepting that there is some jockeying going on with respect to these projects.

The two projects - we seem to be talking about three: the Carman project, the Gimli project, and the Ste. Rose. Ste. Rose is included because of the cost benefit ratio was in excess of 1; the other two are not included because the cost benefit ratio was lower. Now, just a point that might be made. I'm told that the Gimli project is a much smaller project, some $750,000, where the Carman project would be about $7 million, in that neighbourhood.

So if there was some cons ideration gi ven to a provincial un dert aking, considering only the magnitude of the project, it would be much more difficult for the province, on its own, to un dertake the Carman project than it would be something the magnitude of Gimli. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, I'm having some difficulty with some of the statements that the Min ister is making. He initially stated that the Carman project initially was $4.5 million - I understood it was $4.5 million, it's now close to $7 million.

I'm just wondering, my information indicated that the Carman project - the cost benefit ratio was the most beneficial. Now the Mi nister is telling me that it was under 1 and the Ste. Rose was over 1. I wonder if the Min ister could indicate what the figures showed in 19 81, when there was a change in government in terms of the cost benefit ratio. Are those the same figures that we're using now? HON. L. HARAPIAK: There is no difference in the criteria being used for those projects. The costs that referred to - I'm not sure that I referred to them in any of my presentations - 4.5 but those figures have been used.

Those were 19 79 costs, as I understand it, and of course with inflation, costs are going up and that was a very preliminary estimate of the project. The project is now estimated to be in the range of $7 million. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, if the Min ister managed to stonewall the project long enough, probably using the inflation rate, it'll never come under the category of what it would qualify for the project being und ertaken, un less maybe there's a cha nge in government. We hope that's going to happen soon.

I just want to ask the Min ister, is his department in negotiation or is the government in negotiation with the Federal Government right now, in terms of further cost-sharing projects, in terms of diking, whether it be Carman, whether it be Gimli, whether it be in the Red River Valley, because there was a program in place? Those programs have terminated and when I look at the report here it indicates dike upgrading program, etc. covering various communities.

Is there a program in place right now that is cost-shared with the Federal Government, whether it's the Red River Valley, whether it's any communities at all or is it strictly, is the government on their own right now? HON. L. HARAPIAK: I want to indicate to the member that in my earlier comments I noted that the Flood Damage Agreement was extended to 19 89 and the amount covered in the agreement went from 4.5 to 6. 1 and Ste. Rose was included in that number. The other point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a long history of the request for Carman to have something done with their flooding problem.

It is not just an issue that has been considered or has been presented as an opportunity, if you like, for the New Democratic Party administrations. There were opportunities for the previous administration to address the issue. I think it's not an easy one to undertake, but I reject the notion, and perhaps that is what the critic is implying, is that it is this particular administration that is repriorizing the work. It was considered, I'm sure, during the course of the Progressive Conservative administration as well. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is so right.

It was one of their priority projects when we were government at the time and that is why I take exception to the fact that it is not a priority any more. Certainly I want to indicate to the Min ister that he can play with figures which ever way he wants to justify it, but I believe and so does the Mem ber for Pembina, that it is a political decision; and you can jockey your figures which ever way you want to suit yourself and that is the perception that is out there.

You know, when the Member for Pembina has an opportunity, he'll certainly be raising it with the Minister as well, because it was a priority project at one time. Ste. Rose now has priority, Gimli has priority, and Carman is still sitting on the shelf. If that doesn't smack of politics, then I don't know what does. I want to further pursue the area - the Minister just indicated that there is a new agreement or ongoing agreement from 1989 in terms of flood protection for various communities. What is this based on? Is this based on a cost benefit ratio as well?

I'm talking of, for example, the communities in the Red River Valley, because not all the projects have been completed there. HON. L. HARAPIAK: I'm advised that the same criteria are applied in terms of cost benefit ratios and I want to make it clear for the record again that those are federal guidelines and, in terms of the critic's earlier comments that this was a high priority, and I don't deny that it may have been a high priority for him, but the 2989

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 federal guidelines require that the cost benefit ratio must be in excess of 1. The Provincial Government doesn't write those guidelines; we don't set the criteria. The Federal Government does, and I respect that, but we can't change that.

So that when the critic indicates that it was a high priority, and certainly it was with them, but when you come to the point of considering it and looking at the cost benefit ratio and if it doesn't fall within the acceptable range, the only alternative is to try to change the terms of the agreement with the Federal Government certainly on a project of the magnitude of Carman, where you're talking about $7.5 million, to undertake it without some federal input would virtually - well, it could be in excess of anything that we could undertake on our own as a single project. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr.

Chairman, I don't want to belabour this but what the Minis ter is saying, that the cost benefit ratio for Ste. Rose in'81 versus the cost benefit ratio for Carman in'8 1, that the situation in Ste. Rose was a positive one and Carman was not. Is that what the Min ister is putting on the record? If that is the case, then I will have a little private conversation with the Member for Pembina, who indicated to me that the cost benefit ratio in Carman was proportionately better than it was in Ste. Rose. If the Min ister says it was that way in'8 1, I'll accept that.

Put it on the record that there was no change and that's good enough for me. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, I would, for the critic, put on the record that the first review of the cost benefit ratios indicated that Ste. Rose was above 1 and that Carman was below 1. That, we believe, was in'8 1. I stand corrected on that. In 1981, both projects were less than 1, then this was reviewed at some time in'84, approximately, and at that point, the benefits for Ste. Rose were in excess of 1 and Carman - (Interjection) - Mr. Chairman, the Member for Emerson indicates that was politically motivated.

We're guided by the federal guidelines for the cost benefit studies, so if they're politically motivated, they are drawn by the Federal Government. If that is a criticism, it should not be a criticism directed at ourselves. We are bound by those guidelines if we want to have their participation in those shared-cost agreements. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Let me ask the Min ister, who does the cost benefit ratio studies? Is it the Provincial Government or the Federal Government? HON. L. HARAPIAK: The study is done by the Provincial Government and subm itted for approval to the Federal Government.

So the Federal Government is the final MR. A. DRIEDGER: There's my case. HON. L. HARAPIAK: The Member for Emerson says there's his case. He is, I think, expressing some lack of faith in the Federal Government. They're the final authority. MR. A. DRIEDGER: No, you do the study; you jockey the figures; and then you present it. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Surely the Federal Government is a responsible enough body that they would be prepared to challenge the submission of the Provincial Government if they felt that it was somehow politically motivated. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Obviou sly, Mr. Chairman, I find that unacceptable.

I think there's gerrymandering that's taken place because the Minister himself has admitted that the Provincial Government does the cost benefit ratio study, that both projects, he indicates, were less than 1 percent in'8 1, that all of a sudden there was a magical change where Ste. Rose qua lified in '84, obviously, and I can see the reason for that. I will leave that area right now because the Minister has put some material on the record that will probably come back to haunt him. I want to now pursue the area of the Town of Emerson - (Interjection) - Pardon me? - (Interjection) - How many what?

I'll tell you something, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Industry and Commerce says too many ghosts. I'll tell you something. The way this government has been operating and the kind of skeletons that have come out of the closets in the last few weeks and in the last few months - I'll tell you something - he should hang his head in shame and shut his mouth, because the whole thing's caving down on them, and that is one of the reasons why the Opposition is getting very demanding in terms of what's happening, because there's very little credibility left in this govern ment.

I now want to raise a question again with the Minister of Natural Resources. I want to ask whether the project in Emerson, which has been a very complex one in terms of the dyking on the south side of the Town of Emerson, and it's been running into problems with the Americans because of certain land acquisition, etc., I wonder if the Minister could indicate where that project is at, which is already years overdue and, if something doesn't happen one of these years, we're going to be faced with a major problem there.

I wonder if the Min ister could explain to the members of this Legislature exactly where that project is at right now in terms of that dyking that is supposed to be taking place on the south side. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, the staff is preparing some more specific information for me on the Emerson Project, but there are some $226,000 allocated to the Emerson Project represented by the critic. Surely he would not suggest that was politically motivated.

I, frankly, take exception to the repeated suggestion of the Member from Emerson that we are manipulating the figures in some way and that we have a heavy hand with the Federal Government. Hard ly, hard ly. The guidelines are drawn by the federal Treasury Board, and the management of these projects, the study is jointly managed by the province, our department and federally in the Department of the Environment. Surely, the Member for Emerson is not going to sugg est that we as a provincial body involved could co-opt the Federal Government for our political interests.

If that is what he is saying, it is far more a criticism of the Federal Government than it is of us as a provincial authority. 2990

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the Minister wants to get into a debate about the credibility of the Federal Government accepting the provincial figures or not. I think if the Federal Government is going to challenge th e figur es of th e Provincial Government, they have many ways to do that, I suppose. So his argument doesn't have any rationale. But I would like him to explain, I asked specifically about the Town of Emerson where that project is at.

I would also like for him to ind icate how many communities in the Red River Valley are involved in this extended project of protective dyking, this program that apparently has been extended till 19 89. Which communities have been completed? Which ones are designated to be completed, and to explain exactly where the project with the Town of Emerson is at? HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, specifically on the Emerson Project, the tenders closed on August 11, so those should be awarded shortly. Then, there is that portion of the dyke which the member said will have to be built by the U.S. Corps of Engineers.

That is expected to be built next year. It seems to be progressing well in terms of Emerson, and I'm just getting the information together here on the other communities. I can tell you that Letellier, St. Jean, Morris, Rosenort and Brunkild and St. Adolphe are included in that. Those are completed now. Those are completed, and the amounts involved for Letellier were $1 10,000; St. Jean, 125; Morris, 200,000; Rosenort, 60,000; Brunkild, 25; and St. Adolphe, there's $24,000 for St. Adolphe to start on that one. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr.

Chairman, could the Min ister indicate whether the Town of Emerson is the only one that has not really been completed under the program now? I wonder if the Minister can indicate whether the agreement with the United States Army Corps of Engineers has been completed, whether everything is in place to go now, or whether the agreement with the Americans has not been finalized. HON. L. HARAPIAK: I am told, Mr. Chairman, that by the end of this construction season, Emerson, Dominion City and St. Adolphe would be the only ones which were not totally completed. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: Can the Min ister indicate whether the agreement with our neighbours to the south has been completed in the Town of Emerson with the American Army Corps of Engi neers? Ha s th at agreement been finalized now? HON. L. HARAPIAK: That ag reement with the neigh bours to the south, as the Member for Emerson put it, has not yet been finalized. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: Can the Min ister indicate when the anticipated finalizing is going to take place, because I believe - maybe the Minister can clarify this - if it is not finalized, then the project can't be completed, or can it be completed without the finalization of that agreement? 2991 HON. L. HARAPIAK: The information I have is that the U.S. authorities have that program for next year, but it's their decision. We can't force their hand. I think the member earlier was suggesting that perhaps we had influence with the Federal Government. We wouldn't want to expand that to the U.S. authorities as well.

It's in their hands. Every indication we have is that they will be completing it next year. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't want the Minister to try and leave on the record the fact that I say that this government has an influence on the Federal Government in the sense that he was trying to imply. What I was trying to indicate to this Min ister was tha t the figur es of the Provincial Government that are being submitted to the Federal Government in the cost-sharing ratios, cost-benefit ratios are the ones that the Federal Government accepts.

I say that the gerrymandering that there is, has any taken place at the provincial level in terms of pres enting those figur es, because he still hasn't explained to me how the figures from'8 1 to'84 changed in the Ste. Rose case from a minus to a plus and, in the Carman case, it's getting more to be a minus all the time? So let the Min ister not try and leave on the record that I'm trying to create an impression between the Federal and Provincial Government.

All I'm saying is that the Federal Government is accepting the figures of this government, and maybe they should check that in view of the things that have surfaced lately. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, not wanting to get into an extended debate on this issue, what I would suggest to the Member for Emerson is that we would make the document available to him. I would challenge him to add those statements to a letter, and let's submit them to the Federal Government with his view that we somehow have misled or that the Federal Government has not correctly or fairly perused the information that we submitted.

I challenge him to do that. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, the Min ister has a tendency, in developments earlier, of talking in circles. I've asked him where the change took place since'81 to'84 in terms of Ste. Rose coming out on the positive side and Carman dropping in a more negative manner. He's never explained what happened in that period of time. So, if he wants to submit the figures of'81 to me and the figures of'84, I'd be very pleased to get those figures and do some checking on that. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr.

Chairman, I am told that in arriving at these ratios, one of the major factors was that when you take initial view of a project, you get some preliminary costs and then, in a su bsequent review, some of your costs firm up. In the case of Ste. Rose from the period'81 to'84, I believe it was, there was not a significant change in the costs, ther efore the ratio was not negatively impacted; where in the case of Carman, I'm told that the costs - when they were looked at on the second go-around - were in fact considerably higher. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Ste. Rose.

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 MR. G. CUMMINGS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the Min ister if he could give us some in formation about where the negotiations regarding land acquisition in regard to the Ste. Rose ring dike? I'm beco ming in cre asingly concerned because of the lateness of the year. I wonder if he would be able to with the assistance of staff, give us a projected commencement date because I understand there's a definite time period when the federal funds will no longer be available.

I hope that the department is operating in a manner that will make sure the project is completed, so that there is no problem in respect of getting the federal funds. HON. L. HARAPIAK: I'm sure the Member for Ste. Rose is aware that there was not unanimous support in the Ste. Rose area for the project. There were some people who were unhappy with the project, or perhaps the location of the dike, and that then necessitated the expropriation hearings to acquire the property, and that is really what has extended the time frame.

The hearings will be, I understand, in November of this year so if we require the property - and we can't proceed without acquiring the property - then the project will proceed. It's unfortunate that there wasn't - maybe it's not unusual that there wouldn't be some objectors to the project, but it is because of that local objection that posed some problems in terms of property acquisition, that this particular route had to be utilized. MR. G. CUMMINGS: I'm a little startled that the expropriation hearings would not commence until November.

I have no desire to trample on anybody's rights, but these concerns were clearly enunciated, I believe about this time a year ago or certainly the previous fall. I can understand that it may have been since this Mi nister took over, when he first became aware of the concerns that were expressed and needed some time to consider; but can he tell us why it is taking until November to have an opportunity to put on the record the concerns of these people, because frankly, if the concerns are of an overpowering nature, then an alternate plan has to be developed.

The lightness of the commencement, does that indicate a confidence in proving the original plan was correct, or does it indicate that the department took a summer holiday? HON. L. HARAPIAK: I think that there are two items I would like to bring forward in trying to gain some appreciation for the time frame. One is the process for land acquisition and that is not a process which we handle in this branch.

It's the Land Acquisition Branch which handles that and I think the member is aware of that, and the process is in itself a fairly extended process wherein people are required to be given notice and they have time to respond to notices, so the process is quite well-defined but quite extended. In addition to that, prior to proceed ing with expropria tion, all of the detail ed design work, I understand, has to be completed. You can't complete the expropriation without that. MR. G. CUMMINGS: I would like a little clarification on the Minister's last statement that the design work has to be completed.

Is the design and the engineering for the ring dike not in place? HON. L. HARAPIAK: In order to be able to justify, Mr. Chairman, what land do you need specifically for a project, you have to have your plan well developed and the design work has to be done because it is on the basis of that design that you would justify precisely what property you need. So that is the reason for it having to be there. You have to be able to justify the need for the property. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Well I guess that's what concerns me, Mr. Chairman.

A statement was made that the land acquisition cannot proceed until the design work and the engineering is complete. It seems to me that it's very nearly two years since this project received federal approval. I would have been under the very clear impression that the design and engineering work would have been completed earlier, and I apologize to the Min ister if he feels I am a little out of place in asking questions about land acquisition here.

I realize fully that I'm the critic for Government Services which is responsible for land acquisition, but if we get into that department, then it can always be referred back to the department for whom the work is being done. So I hope that he will make an effort because I know we had an understanding after the House first came in, that this project was coming onstream as rapidly as was possible, and I wish to remind him that I have been patient. The people of Ste. Rose are being patient, but they also are looking for some very clear assurance that next year we'll see the movement of some dirt.

The question that I would like the Minister specifically to respond to is: when will the design work be done - if it isn't done now - when will it be done and who's responsible for doing it? HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, the design work is virtually completed I am told, so that is not a matter that would hold the project up at this stage. It is really just the acquisition of the property. The other point I wanted to make, I think the Member for Ste. Rose was concerned about the termination date on the agreement, but that does run until 1989.

There was an extension on that, so I don't think we have to be concerned. I want to acknowledge that the Member for Ste. Rose has raised this item on other occasions in the Chamber and has certainly expressed the concerns of the people from Ste. Rose with respect to completion, but I want to say for my part, that the Provincial Government's commitment to this project is unwavered and it will be done. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Thank you. I think that is heartening news to know that the commitment of the government is still there to see this project through, I appreciate that.

I would still be concerned tha t the hearings will not begin until November. When would it be anticipated that a decision would be made? The hearings themselves should not take an overly long period of time. Will it be anticipated that construction would be underway, or the letting of the contract could begin prior to breakup next spring? 2992

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 HON. L. HARAPIAK: I'm advised that after the hearings are hel d, assuming the he arings would take approximately a week, within 30 days after the hearings the report should be available. So given that time frame, I would see no reason why there sho uldn't be construction activity in the following year. MR. G.

CUMMINGS: One more assurance that I would seek in that respect - once the hearings are finished, then, of course, if no agreement was reached on land acquisition and it would appear that if the hearings uphold the original plan that expropriation may become necessary, can this department give me us any idea if . that can probably be out of the way? I assume that you considered that when you gave me the previous answer; I just want to make sure. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want to prejudge the outcome of the hearings but there is a process in place which could be followed.

Depending on the outcome of the hearing, there are alternative ways, but I would rather not prejudge the outcome. I'm hopeful that it will be resolved through the hearings. MR. G. CUMMINGS: I have to put it on the record, of course, that I wouldn't want to prejudge the hearings either. I just wanted to make it clear, however, that there is still a foggy area between the calling of the hearings and before land acquisition would be complete and, of course, that eats into the time frame further. I'm interested in one last question before I leave this line of questioning, Mr. Chairman.

The time frame that the Min ister alluded to had been extended - or that we both talked about - he said had been extended. Has the town council of Ste. Rose been made aware of that ext ens ion ? I think the re's considerable concern by not only the townspeople but some of the municipal authorities about running out of time on this project. I'd be interested in knowing how firm that extension is and when it came to be. HON. L. HARAPIAK: I'm told that they would be aware of the dates, that it extends to March 31, 19 89, but if there was any doubt in that matter perhaps the Member for Ste.

Rose and ourselves jointly could convey that in some form if you felt that it was necessary. MR. G. CUMMINGS: I guess I would like it to become pu blic kno wledge inasmuch as the people of the commun ity are particularly interested about what's going to happen next spring, considering what happened this spring; and I guess I would like to flag a problem that I know the Mi nister is well aware of, but I would like it on the record that there is an increasing amount of concern about the rapidity of the water flow in that area which caused the flood this spring.

I'm not able at this moment to give you facts and figures to back up the situation, but it would appear from the history of the floods in the area and the increasing frequency of them that the flooding problem in that area, while the town will be protected once this facility is in place or once this structure is in place, there is an increasing concern for those who live in the flood plain of the Turtle that the water is coming more rapidly each year, and it seems to be from the people who have lived there for a fair length of time that they are convinced that it is because of an increasing rapidness with which the water is able to move into the basin, if you will.

I hope the department is taking the situation seriously and is very carefully considering the ramifications of what is happening not only in the Turtle but in some of the other watersheds in the province that we are compounding some of our problems with some of the installations. There's a two-pronged problem. There's a problem with rapid movement; there's also a problem with certain areas.

I presume that we don't need to dwell on it tonight, but there are an increasing number of concerns out in the rural areas where drainage facilities have been put in place and because of some deterioration over the years or silting, perhaps even such things as beaver dams coming into the drainage system, that in fact where drainage facilities have been in place they, instead of helping, have backfired and contributed to problems in various areas. So the problem is not only the construction of drainage; it's also the maintenance of drainage.

I have a long-standing concern about the fact that there has been over the years - many would argue not enough - but at least there have been funds available for drainage, but the amount of funds that have been available for maintenance of those drains once they have been in place has been less than adequate. The Minister might wonder, well, why am I talking about flood problems on one hand and drainage problems on the other, because the first may be very well contributing to the second problem.

But it is the responsibility of the province to make sure that we have a well-balanced approach to the management of the great amount of water th at we have in the watersheds in this province, and obviously our hydro power tha t we have the pote ntial to gen erate demonstrates how much water moves in this province and a good deal comes out of some very productive agricultural areas.

I would challenge the department to take a look at what they're doing in the area of drainage maintenance, that perhaps new constructions in some cases may have a lesser cost benefit than the maintenance and improvement of some of the older drains that have been in place for some considerable length of time and may have been neglected. I don't want to take a lot of time out of Estimates tonight to get into details of specific drains, but the problem is out there, certainly to greater or lesser degrees and depending on which area you look; but the area around Ste.

Rose is suffering severe damage if they get many more floods such as they had this year, that the agricultural damage will be considerable. On the other hand, as I pointed out, there are drains that need maintenance. The Almond Drain (phonetic) to the west of the town of Ste. Rose, while I understand it is no longer a priority or it has not been made a priority - and I stand to be corrected if I've got the name of the drain wrong - but it's a proposed plan to the west of the Town of Ste.

Rose, but I wonder if the staff, or the Minister from his staff, could tell me whether that drain is anywhere on a priority list or is it simply a plan that was once drawn and is now perhaps forgotten? 2993

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 HON. L. HARAPIAK: On that specific item, if we could have cl arification on the name of the dr ain and determine whether it is part of the conservation district, then we would be able to determine, firstly, the location, and whose jurisdiction it would be in. MR. G. CUMMINGS: I un derstand tha t it was a proposed drain to the west of the town of Ste. Rose which would cut off a lot of the water that flows into the Turtle and direct it north. It was my understanding that it was referred to the Almond Drain. Perhaps I'm pronouncing the - I have never seen it in print, to tell you the truth.

I've been approached a few times by those in the rural area who have had problems with the Turtle backing out for two and three miles out into the farm lands, wondering if this drain has been forgotten and apparently it has been, if I've got the name right. If it isn't recognizable, then I presume that it doesn't show up anywhere on any department's priority list. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, we will follow up with that name, but what I would be anxious to know is whether that is within the conservation district.

If it is within the conservation district, we would expect the conservation district to incorporate that into their plans. It would rest more with them than it would with us. Having reacted to that item specifically, I wanted to respond to some of the comments that the Member for Ste. Rose made. He obviously has a good understanding of what is happening in that area with respect to erosion and water control. It is a very, very serious problem. I think, just in terms of the comment that was made, that sometimes a construction process itself could have a bearing on the drainage in the area.

That is one of the very reasons, when we are involved in a project or we proceed with a project, we want to be absolutely certain that we are contributing to the solution of a problem and not to the creation of a problem. That I think results in frustration sometime for people at the grassroots level, whether municipal authorities or individual landowners, where they would like to see us simply come in, get a dragline or a backhoe or some other piece of equipment and put a ditch through their property and get the water off the property.

I can understand the need for that but, from our perspective, we have to be aware of what impact is that going to have somewhere further downstream. We have to be conscious of that. The other point that the member makes which is a very valid one is that there is a changing pattern of runoff off the farmland and we as farmers contribute to that by way of our own cultural practices, by way of clearing land and doing some alterations of water flow on our individual properties.

We tend to view it, I think, in terms of solving our own problem, but we do not often appreciate the cumu lative effect of what we do on our individual properties and there certainly is a growing problem in that respect. We see it; there's evidence of it not only in terms of erosion and the resulting siltation, increasing the maintenance costs of drains contributing to siltation in lakes such as Dauphin. Dauphin is a good example of a lake which is being impacted quite severely by the changing patterns of run-off.

So what I think has to be done and what I see happening is that we need an overall strategy for water management, that it is not just a question of putting in another ditch and removing the water very quickly. I think it is a question of looking to some extent to improve drains, perhaps installing some new facilities, but certainly there has to be, I think, within individual farm operations, some consideration given to what might be done in their own operations to affect the pattern of run -off and erosi on. So it will take a coordinated effort. We will not solve the problem simply by way of digging more ditches.

I want to make reference to a point that was made very shortly after I arrived here and took on my responsibilities as the Minister of Natural Resources. There were some flooding problems in the Ste. Rose area and in the Portage la Prairie area. Having discussed this in the Chamber, I was interviewed by some press people and I indicated that perhaps in some of the areas that were in the escarpment, that were very much prone to erosion, that consideration should be given to forages.

The reporter , not being tha t conversant with agriculture, I learned, when she asked what are forages, wrote up the article, and it appeared in the papers that the Min ister of Natural Resources indicated that the farmers should plant forages to take care of their flooding problems. That was a misrepresentation of how I view the question of water management. I think cultural practices certainly are one component of water management and erosion control.

I'm pleased to indicate that we are involved with the PFRA in the escarpment study which will give us a better understanding of erosion control and run-off patterns in the escarpment area, and we are involved in demonstration projects to try and address that. But certainly it's a very difficult problem, a very serious problem, because we are dealing with what I consider to be a nonr enewa ble resource in terms of soil management. It is far more than just digging another drainage ditch and I think too often it is viewed simply as that; just dig another ditch and the problem will be solved.

My final comment in that area would be with respect to maintenance. We are in fact keeping pace with maintenance. We're not falling behind in terms of our maintenance. That does not suggest that there aren't more projects to be undertaken, but if we would be criticized of anything in this year, I think it would be with respect perhaps to new projects rather than the maintenance. I think we're doing a fairly good job in maintenance. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Well, I would qualify about how well we're doing with maintenance of ditches. I have some evidence that we are not keeping up as good as many people would hope.

But I would like to, and I don't necessarily want the Min ister to respond, but there is one thing that I think is very important out in the country - the relationship between conservation districts or watershed districts and the Department of Highways. There have been too many horror stories, and I can appreciate the problems that are involved, but there are too many horror stories where the Department of 2994

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 Highw ays and the Department of Natural Resources seem not to be on the same wavelength. I understand that there is a gentleman in your department now whom I have not met and perhaps he's here - I haven't met your staff; I wasn't here when they were introduced; I'm sorry - by the name of Mr. Ian Dickson who is doing a good job of improving communication between those two departments.

I would hope that from what evidence of some of the work that he has done, tha t tha t type of liaison would be smartened up because I think that there are too many situations where the Department of Highways has either caused or has not taken into sufficent consideration what some of the natural drains are or has caused drainage to go where it caused problems or in fact stopped natural drains.

Now it can always be argued that that's a matter of opinion, depending on whether you talk to the engineers or whether you talk to the local people that are involved, but I would tell the Min ister - I'm sure he's probably aware of this, but if he isn't, I would like to make him aware of it - that in fact one of the largest complaints that I have received from across my constituen cy, and being wedged between the Riding Mountain and the lake, pretty near the whole constituency is a watershed, and one of the largest single type of complaints that I receive is tha t there has not been adequa te cooperation between th ose depar tme nts when construction has been going on.

I don't intend to make an issue of it at this point, but I think the Min ister and the department should give it some consideration and do everything certainly from your side of the fence to facilitate that type of cooperation. That's my last question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HON. L. HARAPIAK: I want to thank the Member for Ste. Rose for reminding me. I have not introducing all of the staff that is present here. The gentleman that has joined us for the evening presentation is Ness Mud ry. He's the Chief of Water Management.

The individual that you referred to in the name of Ian Dickson is the Executive Director of the Conservation District Authority and we're pleased to hear that he is doing effective work. We are aware of his enthusiasm for the conserva tion districts and we look forward to a continuation of that kind of a relationship between the conservation districts and the people. The one point I wanted to make in terms of the lack of cooperation, it's not deliberate, and if there are some specific items that can be brought to our attention that can be improved upon, we would certainly want to make note of that. MR. G.

CUMMING: I've got a list; I'll bring it over. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Sure, bring them over. I don't think that we should ever come to the point that we would be so satisfied with the manner in which we work with other branches that we couldn't see some improvement. So, if there is room for improvement, make us aware of those and we will. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Following on the Minister's remarks about drains and drains that cause problems and so forth, I would like to remind him that in December of 19 85, the Manitoba Court of Appeal upheld a ruling concerning some farmers in the Gladstone area with an appeal about repeated flooding. It's estimated that probably $2 million in compensation will have to take place to uphold that ruling. I wonder, could the Minister tell us how that has developed so far.

How many people have been paid, or what action the other member, since there was only one that actually went to court with the appeal, what action has been taken since December concerning this matter? HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the exact figure and we can get that for you tomorrow as to what was paid out in one case where we lost the appeal. So we would provide that information for tomorrow and there are, I believe, three other cases pending.

I think this does point out the seriousness of the whole question of drainage and, again, it may cause some people to look at us as being very cautious but, given these kinds of experiences, we have to be aware that undertaking a particular project may, and in fact has, brought about a liability on our part. So, in proceeding with any of the drainage projects, we would want to be very careful with our assessment of the projects to ensure that to the greatest extent possible, we were not incurring the liability by undertaking it. So the one case we lost the appeal; the information will come tomorrow.

There are two or three perhaps cases pending. MRS. C. OLESON: I understand, to the Minister, that there are more than two or three involved. In fact, there were possibly over 80 people involved in the original case. This, as the Min ister will be well aware, is a precedent-setting case where there will probably be many other cases across this nation that it will impact on in the future. So I would like to know from the Minister what plans his department has to do something about this problem to forestall this type of action in the future? HON. L.

HARAPIAK: The Member for Gladstone is correct in saying that there are several potentially - something in the neigh bourhood of 80 farmers who could bring a challenge on this very matter. What we will be doing, we will be trying to with whatever resources we have available in the cases that are coming up to demonstrate that we are not responsible. So we will have to look after the position of the province. The Mem ber for Emerson says, oh, certainly. You know, should we the moment a matter comes up not try to look after the int erests of the province?

We don't want to walk away from any of our responsibilities, but certainly I think we should not avoid having those subjected to the test that they are being subjected to now. Because, if what the members opposite are suggesting by way of their comments, that we should undertake drainage projects, then at the same time, if some liability arises out of that, we should pay that as well. The alternative then, I suppose, would be not to unde rtake any drainage projects, because you are exposing yourself to a liability. So I unde rstand the 2995

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 Member for Gladstone to be supportive of what it is we are doing in this case. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, I have great difficulty with this Min ister and I'm getting more frustrated all the time. This government and this department has been charged in court; they have lost a court case. It's a substantial one. It's one individual at this stage of the game. There are appoximately 80. He indicated two or three others of concern.

When the Member for Gladstone raised the fact that there are about 80, he agrees there are about 80, and this business of saying, well, we're going to defend it because we feel that we are not liable. You've been found liable. The Minister and his department can very easily overcome this if they go back to the people out there and start coming forward with a proper program to resolve it. All the rest of the people who are looking at possibly coming forward in court and challenging on the same lines as has happened, if they had some indication that the problem could be resolved they'd back off.

But this Minister is telling us here that we're going to take and look at all avenues to try and defend our positions and we're not liable. You are liable right now. Why don't you come forward with some positive plan in terms of resolving the problem instead of ending up fighting in court and spending all kinds of money there. You are liable right now on a $2 million court case, I don't know the exact amount, and you will be liable for another 80, because they'll start picking at you one at a time.

You can resolve it by showing some resolve and finally getting out there and coming up with some good capital programs instead of trying to fight with the people in court. I find it very frustrating. There had better be some positive action from this government for a change. HON. L. HARAPIAK: We have accepted our liability in the first case. It was appealed in the courts, we lost the appeal and we've paid the settlement. Now, in terms of the outstanding cases, we want to determine the extent of the validity of the claims that are against us. MR. A. DRIEDGER: It's been established once already. HON. L.

HARAPIAK: I was certainly not suggesting to the Member for Emerson that there were only three individuals involved. I said there were three cases pending ... MR. A. DRIEDGER: And more coming. HON. L. HARAPIAK: . . . and potentially, yes, 80-some cases involved. I think we have a responsibility to determine to what extent we are liable.

Surely the Member for Emerson is not suggesting the moment a claim is brought against the government, whatever department, that simply because a claim has been brought forward that we should pay it without testing that with some body, the courts that could be judged to be independent in this matter. Because, if it were left for us to judge on our part, I'm sure the Member for Emerson would say we're not objective. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, the difficulty I have is the Min ister keeps saying: well, we're going to test it and there are two or three more cases pending and we want to test the liability.

The liability has been established; the government has been found guilty. They have already made settlement and he knows, the Min ister knows, there are possibly another 80 cases pending based on this. All they would have to do, and I'm suggesting to the Min ister, come up with a program that's going to be a positive program and all these people will drop their court cases and their challenges. But, if they're going to sit back and say, well, we're going to test each case in court as it comes along as to our liability, that's stupid, then come forward with a program.

There is a major problem and that's the reason they took this government and this department to court, because there is nothing being done. If there was some kind of program coming forward, consultation taking place so that a program was worked out, even if it was long-range, nobody else would take them to court. But because they sit back and try and fight it through the legal system and say we're not liable, they have been found liable. They appealed it and were found liable. There's a whole raft of cases coming on. All they have to do is go back and finally come up with a plan.

We have professional engineers that are hanging out of our hats and certainly they should be able to come up with some kind of a long-range program. Let's establish it and go back and tell the people, listen, we're short of funds. This is a long-range program; we can alleviate it doing this, and this, and this, instead of trying to take everybody to court and challenging their liability. That is an ass-backwards approach, as far as I'm concerned. HON. L. HARAPIAK: The Member for Emerson seems to be at a bit of a loss for words to express that. I want to point out for the record, Mr.

Chairman, that some of the projects in question go back to 1910, so the problem arises not out of activities unde rtaken - (Interjection) - Mr. Chairman, the Member for Emerson points out that the government is liable and surely when there are changes in government, that government is not absolved of the liabilities incurred by a previous administration. One government doesn't pass it off. The liabi lit y doesn 't end with the cha nge in administration. I'm simply pointing out that some of the dr aina ge projects which are involved in this particular case go back to 1910 .

There is a liability attributed to the government. One has been paid and the others are being challenged. But for the Member for Emerson to suggest that all we are doing is taking people to court is an exaggeration of what exists. In many areas - we were just discussing the Conservation Districts and projects in various parts of the province, that people are wanting us to drain more land.

I'm wondering what the Member for Emerson would suggest, that in terms of bringing a delegation to my office to drain some of the area from the Rat River, if we unde rtake that project, there could be some liability at some point in the future. Should we shy away from these projects because there would be some liability associated with them? The member can't have it both ways, suggesting that we simply pay the claims 2996

Thursday, 14 August, 1986 and not challenge it, and at the same time say we should be doing more drainage. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Minis ter was wondering if I agreed with him about what he was doing. I really haven't discovered, from all he has said, what he is doing. I can't agree or disagree. All I can say is that this group of people who have fought for years and years to get to court and get this matter dealt with, would like it settled.

By the time those 80 people go one-by-one to court, half the people who started the action will be dead before it's settled, and their heirs won't know what they're talking about. It's about time this Min ister came up with a program to present to these people, to meet with them. I would be very surprised if he has met with these people. Well, you know, he's new; he hasn't maybe had time.

If you took the time to meet with the group that launched the action and to look at those extensive, extensive dr ains in that area tha t have been compounding for years, I think you would realize, as many of the rest of us do, that it's imperative something be done. There are alternatives. Perhaps some of that land, as the Member for Arthur in speaking on Bill 4 the other day suggested, perhaps that type of land could be taken out of production and the farmer compensated in some way. Have you looked at that idea? What have you looked at in connection with solving this problem? HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr.

Chairman, I want to indicate that this now falls - this is part of the Conservation District, so simply to suggest that we have done nothing does not represent what is in fact the case. We have consi derable sums of mone y going into the Conservation District. The Conservation District plans the different kinds of projects for the area and we are prov idin g the funding. We have est ablishe d the Conservation District's authority to provide support to the efforts of the Cons ervat ion District. We are undertaking different projects to try to resolve that problem.

Surely the members are not saying that we should simply pay every claim that would arise out of a particular incident. There will be a range of claims arising out of a particular problem. One already has been found to be a case where we are liable. It has been paid. Should we then pay every claim that would arise without trying to screen those in some way to determine the range of liability? I don't think that is what they would suggest. We are, by way of the Conservation Districts, dealing with drainage problems.

If what exists is not satisfactory, I would ask the Member for Gladstone whether there has been some dir ect com mu nication with the Conservation District as to what is needed in that area now. I, personally , have not had any dir ect communication from the Conservation Districts. I would welcome it if they did, in terms of what their view of the current situation is. MRS. C. OLE SON: The Min ister speaks of the Conservation District. I think if he was fully apprised 2997 of the situation, he would realize that it is far too large a project for a Conservation District to do on their own.

They will have to have some input of funds over and above what they presently get. They'd have to have a great deal of help in engineering if the route was going to be a different type of drainage. For instance, there's been a suggestion that there be a large drainage ditch in the vicinity of where the Whitemud flows into Lake Manitoba, to increase the flow. That's a massive project, far too large for the Conservation District to take on on their own.

I think if the Minister would meet with these people and discuss this, I think he'd find they won't go to court one-by-one forever, if they can see there's something going to be done. But when they face the prospect of every few years being flooded, then, you know, why wouldn't they go to court? One of the problem

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-1-67b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 1st hansardpdf 67b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1ec862aed0aa0b539f3d5c304af72410d0afff9f

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