Manitoba Hansard — 26 April 1983 (Sitting 54B, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-54b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Senion - Thirty-Second legislature / olthe Leglslatlve Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Publlalted under the authority of The Honourable D. Jame• W-'dlng S,,. alrer VOL. XXXI No. 548 - 8:00 p.m., TUESDAY, 26 APRIL, 1983. Printed by the Office of the O,,_,s Printe<. Province ot Manilo/>s

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA,Ho n. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G. W.. J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP IND NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC NOP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITO BA Tuesday, 26 April, 1983. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT CO MMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - HIGHWA YS AND TRANSPO RTATION MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: The committee will please come to order. The Member for Radisson was in the middle of his remarks when we adjourned for the Private Members' Hour. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, on point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order, please? MR. D. ORCHARD: The Member for Radisson was talking about noise pollution and I wonder if that wouldn't be mor e approp riately ad dressed to the Minister of Environment? MR. G.

LECUYER: On that same point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Radisson. MR. G. LECUYER: I imagine the point of order made by the Member for Pembina was not a serious one, so I presume you are indicating that I should proceed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we are proceeding on serious business. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, that was an impartial remark. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Radisson. MR. G. LECUYER: Mr. Chairman, I think it's a very serious matter that I was bringing up and I have to take it as a serious matter judging from the number of complaints by letter and by telephone received in this regard.

I presume that some members of the opposition in the past, I presume the member who now is the Member for Niakwa must have heard some of the similar complaints when he was representing the constituency that I now represent.

The matter dates way back, as I indicated, and I want to for the record indicate that I raised this matter on September 9, 1982, in a letter to the Minister of the Environment, copy to the Minister of Highways, drawing attention to this matter and having myself apprised of the fact that the complaints were substantial in that the noise level that the people from Windsor Park, adjoining Lagimodiere Blvd., have to endure, especially in summer, is something that we would not want to beset on anyone. The problem is that there seems to be no alternative.

The environment is not in a position to compel any other level of government or any other branch of government to intervene in this regard, because it does not control traffic and it appears that the only two solutions, either by building a sound barrier - and I believe that falls under the jurisdiction of the City of Winnipeg - at a substantial cost, and I think that matter has been looked into and shelved. The other alternative is to complete the Perimeter Hig hway. Now, in this regard, the Minister has indicated - and I am fully aware - that the funds are not there to undertake such a venture, it would appear.

On the other hand, I would like to know, Mr. Minister, if the land that would be required to complete the Perimeter Hig hway is now owned by the province? HON. S. USKIW: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe it's entirely under provincial ownership at the present time. MR. G. LECUYER: Second ly, I'd like to know if the plans or the designs for the completion of the Perimeter Highway are completed? HON. S. USKIW: I'm sorry, I was consulting with my staff. MR. G. LECUYER: What I was asking, Mr. Minister, was how far are we with the plans or designs of that portion of the Perimeter Highway? HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, that particular route is at the stage of land acquisition and not beyond. We have not designed a highway system to date to complete that Perimeter. MR. G. LECUYER: Well, it worries me a great deal that we're that far from ever completing this highway, because it does appear that we're a long way from correcting the problem.

As I indicated before, noise levels were monitored in March of 198 1 and were determined to be over 13 decibels during the daytime and up to 17 decibels over the acceptable limit during nighttime, so you can imagine what it's like to be living there during summertime when people try to keep a window open to get some fresh air. It is an absolute continuous flow of diesel trucks, large transfer trucks flowing on that road all night - absolutely all night. The paper which I have received from Environmental Management on September 28, 1982, agrees with that and I quote from it.

It says, "The sound levels exceeded this department's guidelines - maximim acceptable for a residential area - by as much as 13 decibels during daytime period and 18 decibels during nighttime period. Trains were observed operating in the Symington Yards, but the prim ary nois e source was traffic along Lagimodiere Boulevard, especially trucks." And it went on to say, "The department presently has no legislative authority to regulate traffic noise. Service is provided to citizens by performing monitoring." And that is, it seems, as far as the Department of Environment is able to go in this regard.

Following this, I did meet with some officials of the Clean Environment and they , in turn, met with 2106

Tuesday, 26 April, 1983 representatives of the Department of Highways at the provincial level, and the Streets and Transportation Branch of the City of Winnipeg. It indicates in there, "The representatives of the City of Winnipeg agreed that the noise from traffic on Lagimodiere Boulevard created excessive noise in the Windsor Park residential area." So this was the conclusion arrived at when the meeting was held between Environmental Management Division and the Hig hways and Transportation Branch, as well as the Streets and Transportation Division of the City of Winnipeg.

As I stated earlier on tod ay, the people who live there are in a terrible bind, because it seems that nothing can be done to control the noise except rerouting the traffic. The problem is, right now, there is nowhere to reroute it. I simply want to put this on the record , the fact that the concern is a major one and I would hope that sooner than later, we will address this problem. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the member has indicated the environmental problem on that strip which is well known to the department; it certainly is to myself. In dealing with it though, there are a number of questions that arise.

One is that even if we were to have the completion of the north Perimeter, we would not eliminate the noise from Lagimodiere unless, of course, the trucks were denied the use of that strip for through-traffic purposes. That's something that the City of Winnipeg would probably make the decision on. The traffic may still go through that area unless they were not allowed to use that route.

The City and the Department of Highways have agreed on one conclusion at this point in time and that is that from a traffic volume point of view, they don't believe that we are at the stage yet where we must complete the north Perimeter. From an environmental point of view, it's quite a separate question. I suppose it's a question of how much weight you attach to that issue and the price tag that goes with it. MR. G. LECUYER: I don't know when the last studies were made to dete rmine · the tra ffic volume on Lagimodiere.

Anybody that lives near there or ever tries to get on Lagimodiere from any one of the streets of Windsor Park will find himself usually having to wait approximately five minutes to get an opening to get on that highway. If that's not a densely traficked road, I don't know. I haven't seen very many others as densely traficked. MR. CHAIRMAN: You should see Manila. MR. G. LECUYER: The point I wish to make, of course, is that traffic is not only just automobiles that live in that area. I am referring to, basically, the transport trucks that use that.

The City, of course, is in a position to be able to zone it to prevent trucking on that road, but I suppose it can't do that either because there is no other route that they can use at the moment. Am I correct, Mr. Minister, in assuming that at least at one end of that Perimeter, if it were to be completed, the ove rpass is to some extent comple te on Lagimodiere? They would be using the overpass that presently exists there. Of course, it would require some modification, because right now it is not intended as a follow-through.

I don't know if that overpass structure is also complete d on the No. 1 Highway though. HON. S. USKIW: The interchange at 59 and Lagimodiere is half-completed. The other problem area is the inter

section at No. 15 Hig hway, which would require a major interchange as I . . . MR. G. LECUYER: Yes, I suppose that is correct. I was forgetting that particular highway in the set-up and I imagine that would represent substantial cost; but if I heard the Minister correctly this afternoon, it seems to me they indicated that the interchange at the No. 1 and the highway at the intersection near St. Annes there represents $8 million, if I heard correctly, which is in the process of being completed.

I heard the Member for Pembina this afternoon say, well, we built a road there because it was essential due to the volume of traffic and for the safety of people using the highway. I do believe the same can be said about that strip of Lagimodiere and if we need any proof of that we can also go back, and we all know the number of accident s tha t did occur at the intersect ion of Lagimodiere, especially at Dugald Road in past years. That, to a certain exten t, Mr. Min ister, has been corrected by lights that were set up there.

But when we installed lights there, we also forced all these trucks to stop; and every time they start again in the middle of the night, that also creates a further excess of noise. As I say, to correct part of the problem, we have created also another problem. We've increased the noise level.

I know there is no easy answer to that because the costs, as you have pointed out, are substantial, but I would hope that somewhere along the line we will complete the highway because it would be of use not only for trucking, firms that are now using Lagimodiere, but also for the well-being of residents that live all alone and for the safety, as well, of these people. HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the member is suggesting and it's the kind of undertaking that could not be completed in one year even if it were to be undertaken. It would be a three or four year venture, I would think.

I suppose what the member is suggesting is that we begin the process; that's the message I'm getting. I hope I'm reading him correctly. I would think that we would want to have the City of Winnipeg endorse whatever decision is made in that sense. We have always attempted to work with the City of Winnipeg with respect to the Perimeter Hig hway, as I understand it, and access from the highway system into the City of Winnipeg.

It doesn't, though, detract from the fact that even if the highway were there, the noise problem the member alludes to would only be altered by designating truck routes by the City of Winnipeg. Just the provision of the no rth Permi meter would n't elimina te that problem. It might reduce the volume of traffic, but unless the city was prepared to restrict traffic in that area, truck traffic, then the noise level may not be reduced in any event. MR. G. LECUYER: Oka y, my final comment, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I just want to make it clear that 2107

Tuesday, 26 April, 1983 that is exactly what I'm saying - I would like the process started as sooner than later in this regard and that is why I'm drawing attention to this particular concern. Second ly, I agree that the traffic would continue on that road and there would remain noise, but the main culprit now is not the automobiles that are using that stretch of highway, it's the trucks. If there were an alternative route the City then, I assume, would prevent trucks from using that highway. If it didn 't, the pressure of the citizens living in the area would quickly get them to do so.

I think that the noise problem would be, to a large extent, solved if there was this other route. HON. S. USKIW: I'm led to believe, Mr. Chairman, that the figure I gave earlier was probably excessive. It might be more in the order of $20 million or $25 million. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the Minister some questions regarding Highway 75 and the proposed route between P.R. 429, which is the St. Adolphe turnoff, to 305 which is the east-west road through St. Agathe.

I understand there were a number of alternatives, firstly, that were considered in twinning Highway 75 through that stretch. I would ask the Minister if he could tell me what the cost comparison was between the proposed route, which happens to be on the east side of the existing highway, as compared to a twinning that would lie to the west, but still on the east side of the railway track. HON. S. USKIW: The information the staff has given me is that the figure 1.7 million would be the difference in costs. That is the west-side location over the east side location. MR. C. MANNESS: Well, Mr.

Minister, I'd like a further breakdown of that figure, not in detail, but I'd like a better understanding of that difference because I'm aware of the fact that certainly there need to be fewer homes and yards that would be disturbed on the west side. The total distance, particularly in the minds of the Glenlea residents, would be somewhat half a mile shorter, and I'm wondering what other factors overweigh those apparent cost savings, were that road to be on the west side. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the department advises that there would be much more disruption on the west side as compared to the east side.

In particular, it would involve the radio tower, which is a big item. I think that's a million-dollar item, if I'm not mistaken, and I believe four additional buildings over what we have to contend with on the east side. MR. C. MANNESS: Well, first of all I'd like to question the radio tower. Are they CJOB? No. What towers are these specifically? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, it's the CKY Radio Transmitter Building. It's not the tower, it's the building. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr.

Chairman, I'm wondering if the Minister then can tell me whether one of the alternatives considered was a twinning knot within the normal distance of the existing road would indeed, further west, a twinning that would perhaps be on the other side of the CKY structure and indeed on the other side of some of the existing farm yards and buildings that are presently located immed iately west of the present highway. HON. S. USKIW: Yes, to meet highway standards, the idea of splitting a four-lane system into two two-lane roads half a mile apart, is expens ive and not recommended for safety reasons and others.

It would really mean having to relocate both sets of lanes to the west of the existing location, which would be mo re expensive. MR. C. MANNESS: Certainly I can understand the necessity of a much higher cost if you relocated both lanes, but why would both necessarily have to be relocated? Certainly, there are a number of instances in the United States, and I think even Highway No. 1 East, where indeed there is a considerable distance between the lanes. HON. S.

USKIW: That's the problem of controlling any private land between two roadways and the accessibility to any particular parcels between which causes a hazard, and it is a problem of traffic turning in the wrong direction whenever you have a split system, and where you have residences in the area that becomes a real problem. MR. C. MANNESS: Well, Mr. Chairman, then I take it that the consideration of ruling out that specific potential type of system was done so, mainly because of safety and not because of cost.

Would there have been a cost saving, setting aside the consideration of private land being set in-between; and second ly, some of the safety concerns? Would there have been a safety or a cost saving if indeed the new la neage had been put immediately east of the railway track? HON. S. USKIW: I'm advised that notwithstanding the safety factors, the alternate route would still be more costly than the present location. MR. C. MANNESS: I suppose then that's the specific problem that I have and indeed the residents of Glenlea have.

They do not understand why, when indeed that distance would be shorter; in effect, it would not involve touching any farmsteads. Why would that be more costly? HON. S. USKIW: One of the reasons for the greater expenditure of dollars is that you would then have to add additional service road mileage in that area. You would just not be building the two lanes of expressway, you'd be building the service road as well, additional service roads. You'd be putting them on the insides. The services roads would also be built on the inside of the two lanes going each direction. MR. C.

MANNESS: Pardon my lack of understanding in this area, but is that a necessary requirement for every mile of twin-laning? Do you require an immediate service road on either side? 2108

Tuesday, 26 April, 1983 HON. S. USKIW: All of the expressways that we build very severely limit direct access. Therefore, in exchange for direct access, we have to provide service road facilities for local traffic, so it's an unavoidable aspect of an exp ressway system. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Minister, I find that somewhat difficult to accept in this case, because on one side there could very well indeed be a railway track which would act as almost a natural barrier.

With a few crossings removed, indeed, I would say that the number of points at which flows would come in laterally could be reduced to a very minimum and that there are no buildings or no farm sites. There are no towns to service along that four- or five-mile stretch from St. Adophe to Ste. Agathe. I again wonder the necessity for having service roads on both sides. HON. S. USKIW: That alternative, Mr. Chairman, is indicated to be 40 percent more expensive. MR. C.

MANNESS: Because of the requirement of really one additional service road for that length, or two additional, then what would be the cost if those two additional service roads were not built? Then what would be the cost of placing that new twinning of highway immediately adjacent to the railway track where the additional two service roads were not built? Would there be a cost saving then? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, logically there would be, but we can't design an expressway in that way. There has to be a service road capability. Otherwise, you would be denying access to property. MR. C.

MANNESS: I once did have a detailed map in front of me, but I have been led to believe by many of the property owners in that area that because it's all their land between the two roads and that because there are no east-west laterals required to service any area, that one access to their farrnable property would certainly be sufficient. They again would question the requirement for service roads within that area but, nevertheless, the Minister may wish to comment on that particular assertion of mine and the people of Glen lea. I would ask a further question.

When was the final decision made to adopt the proposed route? HON. S. USKIW: After a considerable amount of discussion with the people in the area and a personal visit to the area. MR. C. MANNESS: I would ask the Minister then, did he make that decision or was it made, you know, by the other administration? What time frame? How many months ago was that decision made? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I belie ve it was sometime in the early part of the winter or before winter set in. Yes, there was no snow on the ground when I was out there. We had a number of delegations.

I went out to take a look at the area, I went on a tour of the area; almost was convinced that the residents were right when I toured the area. We came back and we took out the drawings and the alternatives and the costs associated with each, and decided that the present route is the one that we must take. MR. C. MANNESS: Is that decision irrevocable, or how much money has been spent today in the design of that particular proposal? HON. S. USKIW: I suppose what is revocable is the fact that we don't have to build a highway. That's about what is revocable.

Once we have made some decisions on the standards and location, we either proceed or we don't proceed. MR. C. MANNESS: A four-lane highway to St. Adophe? HON. S. USKIW: That's right, and it does raise that question. It wouldn't make sense to have a four-lane stret ch for five mi les ending at the St. Adolphe intersection. In fact, that indeed would be a waste of public funds in my opinion, if that's where we would termina te, but we have gone thr ough the proper process.

We have listened to the people that had views other than ours, and have concluded that we must proceed with the course that we are now following. I don't know what else can change that opinion, but I think we have given them an awful lot of time on that. MR. C. MANNESS: I would ask the Minister what consider ation was given to the Town of Gl en lea specifically; the fact that running another lane would virtually remove that hamlet from the face of the map.

I am wondering what consideration was given; whether indeed the Minister met with specific individuals or indeed did he attempt to meet with a larger group of spokespeople who would have been taking into account not their own interests - and I know the Minister met with individuals who were prepared to consider only their own interests - but did the department at all meet with a larger group of people who would have been concerned with the community as a whole? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, with the present plan, we are buying two homes less than we would with the plan that the member is suggesting.

That is, the westerly location would require us to buy three homes rather than one. The implement dealer would have to be taken out regardless of which plan we adopt, so that it doesn't help the member's cause. You'd better count your blessings. MR. C. MANNESS: Certainly, that's right. Given the consideration that the only alternative is that indeed the twinning of the highway be in immediate adjacency to the existing highway. Given that fact, I can see the argument.

I suppose I am not totally convinced that that highway shouldn't be branching off right at the present location at which it had ended last year, at 429, and begin to hug the railway line. Has any consideration or any design work been comp leted at all for the stretch beyond 305, and again, I'm thinking specifically in the Union Point area, where indeed the highway seems to virtually be on top of the railway and there doesn't appear to be an awful lot of 2109

Tuesday, 26 April, 1983 room for lateral movement either way, certainly none to the west, or in between the existing highway and the railway? HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, our plans at the present time are within that area that ends at Ste. Agathe. Some preliminary planning or study work has been done beyond that, and one of the questions that comes up is whether it wouldn't be more prudent to shift the railway line over somewhat as opposed to altering the location of the highway. MR. C. MANNESS: Well, I'm glad to hear that is being at least consi dered .

Conceptually , it was my understanding that the railway just has upgraded over the last couple of years and I'm glad to hear the Minister saying that the opportunity wasn't missed at that time and therefore consideration would not be given to considering requesting the CN, or through some joint agreement, to change the course of the track somewhat. I would like to ask a specific question regarding the water control structure within St. Norbert under Highway 75. I know the Minister has indicated that it's a decision made by the City of Winnipeg because it falls within the city limits.

I want to be absolutely assured, however, now that the Minister of Natural Resources is here, that indeed the Minister is accurate when he says to me that the City of Winnipeg has total control of the size of that water structure. - (Interjection) - Okay, the Minister says he didn't say that. Specifical ly, who has control of the size of that water structure in the sense of the volume of water it delivers to the Red River? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I think, just so that we're not confused, I think I indicated to the member that the

section of highway in question was indeed a city street and, therefore, we as the Hi gh ways Department had no jurisdiction. I would like to think I'm right when I say that Water Resources plays a major role in any level of government with respect to structures over waterways and that's probably the case there. MR. C. MANNESS: Well, I'm glad to hear that and I don't know if this is the appropriate time or not, but I see where there is a water control structure built into the Capital Spending Estimates.

Am I right in assuming that it would be a structure required for the additional two lanes to cross the La Salle River right within St. Norbert? HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure of any connection to the twinning of Highway 75. MR. C. MANNESS: Well, that's fine. I'll ask the question then a little bit more specifically. Is there any design work being done at all at this time for Highway 75, the additional two lanes, where it is crossing the La Salle River within the St. Norbert area? HON. S.

USKIW: I'm sorry, I missed that last question but I wanted to add one more comment and that is, the department is looking at that

section of street as potentially being part of Highway 75 up to the Perimeter. If, indeed, we might be able to negotiate an agreement with the City of Winnipeg - and I have just signed a letter to that effect today which has not yet gone out in the mail - if there are some trade-offs with the City of Winnipeg that we might enter into an agreement on, that might be the property of the Highways Department. That's subject to whatever the City of Winnipeg wishes to agree to. MR. C. MANNESS: Well, thank you.

I'm not overly concerned with the configuration of the road network through there that would produce a four-lane highway. I suppose my main concern is that the Minister and his department does not accept as is given, the volume flow that is being offered within the existing structure in St. Norbert. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister indicated that has nothing to do with his department, so that will be out of order. The Member for Morris. MR. C.

MANNESS: Well, obviously the Minister can tell that I am very concerned about this and maybe he can tell me specifically what department I can go to, to again question the design of the water control system under the new twinning of Highway 75. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the City Waterworks Department must be involved. I would like to think I'm right in saying that there may be provincial involvement, but I'm not certain of that.

I don't know whether The Winnipeg Act provides for exclu sive jurisd iction on waterways within the boundaries or whether they must link up with the provincial system. I would think it links up to the provincial system, therefore it would involve provincial engineering expertise and that would be the Water Resou rces Branch of the Department of Natural Resources. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'll accept that.

It seems to me that - and I can be wrong - that I posed tha t question to the Mini ster of Na tural Resources last year and I've been given the answer every time I've asked the question that indeed it's the City of Winnipeg's responsibility. I can't accept that totally, so I will pose the same question again to the Minister of Natural Resources during his Estimates. Thank you. HON. S. USKIW: Just one slight correction. I meant to say the City Engineering Department. I don't think they have a Water Control Department in the City of Winnipeg. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina. MR. D.

ORCHARD: On a point of order. If we're discussing the - what's the name of your river there? - the La Salle River, that's under provincial jurisdiction; that's a provincial waterway. So my understanding of it, anything that is planned and designed though is with the advice of our honourable friend at the end of the table. HON. S. USKIW: We just said that. 2110

Tuesday, 26 April, 1983 MR. D. ORCHARD: Right. But, Mr. Minister, I question whether you would allow any structure to go on a connecting road system that was not adequate and although we don't want to mix departments, there is a certain responsibility of the Department of Highways and Transportation in this matter. HON. S. USKIW: Well, no, Mr. Chairman. The City of Winn ipeg who must plan their streets and roads program has to link up with the Department of Water Resources in order to determine the specifications for CFS capacity or whatever, with the culverts or bridges that are installed.

I'm sure that is the direct linkage with the Provincial Government, through the Water Resources Branch. The Highways Department has nothing to do with it since we have no jurisdiction in that area. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, we have discussed this prior to now but I still have the concern over the proposed Headingley bypass - (Interjection) - Well, good, we're on good terms to start off with, in other words. In the Budget, do you have a specific amount of money budgeted for that particular item? HON. S.

USKIW: Yes, we have some money for land acquisition in the Estimates this year. MR. R. NORDMAN: Well, in a time of constraints such as we are feeling right now would it not be, could we not have some room for thought in here of abandoning this particular project? The citizenry and the business people in the immed iate area are bitterly opposed to this change, and some steps were taken to lower the speed limit, and better lighting was provided at strategic locations along the highway as well as asphalting of some of the shoulders in strategic areas.

On top of that the City of Winnipeg Police Department has been doing a very diligent job of patrolling that area - (Interjection) - No, riot me, no, no. But I know they're there, I certainly know they're there. Due to the fact that the accident rate has been greatly reduced, I'm just wondering if we couldn't give serious consideration to abandoning this particular plan, or are we in a position that we have too much invested in it now to go back? HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, the amount of money we have in the Estimates is quite small and it is not intended that we simply buy up the property.

We will only buy where we feel we must buy; where property is either going to be developed or there's some pressure upon us to make a decision. But we have a very small amount in the Estimates for that purpose and it is related to future need. The solution that the member is proposing, of course, does not resolve the long-term needs of that particular part of Trans-Canada Highway. It may suffice for a short period, but our buying program is based on the long term and we probably will not be building it for a good number of years.

In the meantime, we are making sure that we have right-of-way at what we would consider relatively good value, rather than excessive costing for property after it was developed which would be the case if we didn't acquire it now. MR. R. NORDMAN: I do have here a series of letters and petitions from the residents of Heading ley and the surrounding area, people who are going to be directly affected by this proposed bypass, and I imagine the Minister has also received them.

I know that the former Minister of Hig hways, in the previous government, he has received some; I have received them; the Leader of the Opposition has received them. You know, there's no mistaking the attitude that prevails in the vicinity. I didn't particularly want to go back into the history of it but originally, when this problem presented itself there was a rash of accidents on that strip. I don't care how good a highway you've got, if the nut behind the wheel is the one that is to blame for the accident. You know, I don't know what else we can do.

You could give them a four-lane divided highway and the same people behind the wheel would still have an accident. I don't know that we can blame ourselves for those fatalities that happen, but I would just like the Minister to give serious consideration to abandoning that project. HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with that expression that the member uses - the "nut behind the wheel" - but which wheel?

So often you drive on a congested route where there are no passing lanes and you may have to drive for 10 miles without an opportunity to pass a vehicle because the nut behind the wheel is in front of you, you see. MR. R. NORDMAN: You've got a point. HON. S. USKIW: So you have mental fatigue; you have driving fatigue; you feel very uncomfortable about the fact tha t you can't meet your dead line for your appointment or your meeting, or just getting home, or whatever it is, you're frustrated, and you venture out when it's not safe to do so. That is the human nature of things behind the wheel.

So it depends who the nut is and which one. There's no answer to that other than to build safer highways. When you have traffic that is that congested, then you have to look at building better highways for that particular area and that's what four-laning is al! about. It's to allow that person that wants to move along to be able to do so without having one vehicle holding up a whole line of traffic for miles and miles. MR. R. NORDMAN: Yet, Mr. Chairman, that strip of highway is four lane although it isn't separated, divided. HON. S.

USKIW: Well, that's the other problem, you see, when you have an undivided four-lane highway that has the density of traffic that we are looking at there. No. 9 to Selkirk is another good example. They are what I call death strips. It's inevitable that people will get killed on it by the fact that there is no median protection for people either walking as pedestrians, or making left-turn lanes or whatever it is, the chances of an accident there are just that much greater. It's just a congestion problem and we have to deal with it in a modern way. 2111

Tuesday, 26 April, 1983 MR. R. NORDMAN: One more thing then, Mr. Chairman. Would the Minister then please make an effort to meet with these people in the Headingley area, and lay it on to them as you have laid it on to me? HON. S. USKIW: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr. Minister, I don't mean that disparagingly at all. HON. S. USKIW: I didn't get that comment, and it's perhaps better that I didn't. The memb er must know that we have had a consultant working on that project. They're having public meetings. We have met in my office with a number of people from the area.

Ther e will be another opportunity after we have the final report put together, and in the next month or two that's going to take place. Now there's no urgency in the sense that nothing is happening anyway. We're not proceeding to construct the expressway there at the moment. There is ample time for all of the opinions to be heard and whatever their value is, of course, will be taken into account and whatever modifications are made along the way. MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, this has been going on now for several years.

It's been hanging on and hanging on, the uncertainty of it, the rumours that fly around, and all I'm asking is that they hear it from the Minister. HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think they have had an opportunity to do that. I think we've responded to mail. We've had mee tings in my office. I don't know what else I can do until that final report is ready. MR. R. NORDMAN: Well, after we have the final report. HON. S. USKIW: When we have that there will be an opportunity for them to discuss it. MR. R. NORDMAN: Very fine, thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. understand that you're dealing with the acquisition and purchase of right-of-way. HON. S. USKIW: Planning and Design. MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on Item No. 3.(a). MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Minister, I'm sure by now has received just a short letter from me, in which I have indicated my feelings toward the highway program, particularly dealing with my constituency in the southwest corner of the province. It would appear, Mr. Chairman, that there is a complete lack of either understanding or ability by this Minister and by this government to comprehend what is going on in that particular area.

I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, and I'm sure that he is well aware of the fact that he has had petitions or resolutions, as recently as last week, from the Municipality of Pipestone, which I have a copy of, requesting the upgrading of 256, which is between Reston and Sinclair, Cromer, the route in which a lot of the oil from the Waskada oil field comes from.

As well, there have been numerous letters and requests, not only from me but from the residents of the Waskada area, dealing with Highway No. 452, which is the road directly north of Waskada; Highway 251, which is the link between Waskada; and 83; and as well, 251 and Lyleton. That, Mr. Chairman, is the area which we see a lot of heavy traffic, not only the oil well traffic dealing with the product of the production - the crude oil - but as well, the heavy equipment that is being brought in to serve that community. I want to deal specifically with the road directly north of Waskada. Mr.

Chairman, there is a danger there for school buses. There is a danger there for the normal traffic that is carried on that highway because of the dust factor, which a year ago, there was a request put forward to the Minister to do something about it. As well, the tremendous amount of weight that is now going over that road all the way up to No. 3, over to 83, which is now currently being hammered pretty badly with the weight.

Just to bring it into the kind of terms that the average citizen would understand, out of that one oil company alone, out of the Omega field at Waskada, it is my understanding that there is one semi-load of oil every hour going up that highway. That's 452 to No. 3, up 83 to 256, and on to the dump at Cromer, the oil dump. That is two loads or two trucks every hour - one going up and one coming back. That's from one oil field alone.

That's not considering the development that's taking place in the Coulter area and, as well, the Lyleton area, which is again coming onstream and a lot of oil is coming out of that area. Mr. Chairman, the point I'm trying to make, that if this government, if the Department of Hig hways does not start to deal with it immed iately and start to acquire and to upgrade the roads that are serving that new development in Manitoba, we are going to have roads that are in a condition that are going to be hard to salvage. You can't pound roads down and allow them to deteriorate and not even pay attention to them. I, Mr.

Chairman, cannot find one dollar that's allocated to that area. If the Minister of Hig hways would take into account with his colleagues the amount of revenue, No. 1, that the oil trucks are paying in licences; No. 2, the revenue that the province is getting directly from the taxes on that oil; the taxes that the lando wners are paying in income tax to provide their share of the wealth. There's a multitude of income that's coming from that area and not one nickel for the constituency of Arthur, not one nickel, recognizing the fact that's where a tremendous amount of income comes from. On the other side, Mr.

Chairman, we get a little tired of the fact that we have to build, help pay for winter roads to deal with the forest industry, another natural resource which I have no problem with, but year after year we have to go in there and do that. We've never really complained about it. The development of our Hydro projects, Mr. Chairman, we've gone in and spent millions of dollars to build highways for Hydro. There hasn't been any complaints from my constituents of Arthur, Mr. Chairman, but tonight I am sitting here looking at a map that hasn't even had one nickel spent 2112

Tuesday, 26 April, 1983 back in that area to help pay for the kind of road loss that is taking place. Mr. Chairman, I also feel very strongly that there is a danger for the school children on particularly Highway No. 452, north of Waskada, where we see a lot of children going home on school buses, the dust factor, the crowding of big trucks. There has to be a major development take place with the highway program there, Mr. Chairman, and it should start now, because if we allow it to continue to deteriorate, then we, in fact, are going to be playing catch-up. In that time, Mr.

Chairman, we could see the loss of children through acciden ts; we could see loss of wheels off of vehicles because of the holes that are now being put in place; the breakage of windshields with these big trucks travelling on these roads. Mr. Chairman, I think we've got a very short shift from this particular Minister of Hig hways. I would like to be corrected. I hope I am wrong, Mr. Chairman; that what I am reading is wrong. The Member for lnkster indicates that all this take place since they took office. Mr.

Chairman, we did have some highway programs taking place in the southwest area and I can name them for him if he likes, but the mainstream of oil in the oil production has come on within the last year and one-half since this government's been in office. I, Mr.

Chairman, again go back to the fact, and I want the Minister to tell me if I'm wrong or if I'm not, that he has received a resolution from the Municipality of Pipestone wanting the upgrading of 256; that he hasn't, in fact, received requests from the people of Waskada and that area to upgrade the highway north of Waskada; that he hasn't received requests from the Town of Melita to do something with Hig hway 83, which is depleting at a tremendously rapid rate; as well as a resolution or a petition from the southwest corner of the people of Lyleton wanting No. 251 upgraded. Mr.

Chairman, there are people sitting there who are pleading for some attention to be paid to them in highway construction and acquisitions and there is nothing happening. I'm saying as a taxpayer, and people in that area who pay their fair share of taxes, at least give them the assurance tonight that he will put in place - and I think the Minister could do hi mself political good; I think he could do the province some good and I hope he's listening - a special team of highway people into that area to make recommendations on what the longer-term road system has to be to serve the oil industry.

Because it is not getting smaller, Mr. Chairman; it is getting larger, and we need a special task force of highway people to meet with town people, municipal people in the southwest area, representatives of the RMs and those towns, to recommend the kind of road system that we need to, in fact, deal with the economic resource development that is taking place. Mr. Chairman, if we don't deal with it, as I indicated, we will be playing catch-up road work and it doesn't work. In the long run, it costs us a lot more money than we're ever going to have to - should be paying.

I again go back to the revenue that is being paid into the province from that area and it can't be ignored, Mr. Chairman. Another couple of points that I want to make when I have the floor, Mr. Chairman, and that is some time ago the Minister assured me, a year ago, that before a bypass was put in the Town of Oak Lake, or by the Town of Oak Lake on No. 1 Hig hway, that he would have a meeting with the local residents and give them an opportunity to have input where that road is going to go. Did that happen, Mr. Chairman, and where is the bypass going to go by Oak Lake? Is it going to go on the north side?

Is one two-lane going to continue through the Town of Oak Lake and one to the north, or where precisely is that bypass going to go, because I do see it is in the acquisition of property? Mr. Chairman, I'll stop and let the Minister answer at this point. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I don't fault the Member for Arthur for making those comments. I have been making those for years, and so it's difficult for me to argue with him. Since the Province of Manitoba took over the main market roads in 1965, we have not yet got to the stage where we have converted those roads into reasonable P.R. standards.

We still have 4,000 out of 7,000 miles to do. Now that's a long way to go and it is going to take another couple of decades or more. We've been at it now for almost two decades, and we haven't gone very far. It doesn't seem to matter which government is in power, we don't do much by way of catch-up. We have a hard time to keep going what we have. MR. H. ENNS: Oh no, that's because you fellows interrupt us every once in a while. HON. S.

USKIW: I think it is probably productive to point out - you know, the member talks about 256 where a lot of work has been done in the last four year and he wants it to continue, and I don't fault him for it. I would think that if the member looked at the traffic count on that highway, on that basis alone we would probably never do anything there, but we recognize that there are other considerations. He has mentioned some of them. But tra ffic count is an imp ortan t consideration for people that move around in cars. In my own backyard, Mr.

Chairman, we have Highway 304 running from 59 to Pine Falls with a traffic count of 700 cars a day that hasn't been touched for a decade, has no shoulders, very dang erous curves, a very substandard piece of highway with 700 cars a day using it. HON. A. MACKLING: What are the numbers down here? HON. S. USKIW: About 100 or less. No, I don't agree with the Minister of Resources. It doesn't detract from the need because what he is talking about is tonnage movements and that is fair comment, but there is a rationale for both tonnage movement and general traffic.

We have many roads in Manitoba that are just crying for attention, much more so than this one, and we have said, no. Now for the benefit of the Member for Arthur, I would like to tell him that there are things happening on 256. In that oil producing area, we have just agreed, two weeks ago, to extend Hig hway 41 to 257 in order to facilitate - I'm sorry. The Deputy corrects me - to take over the municipal road which ends up at Hig hway 41, in other words, from Kirkella down to 256 because of 2113

Tuesday, 26 April, 1983 the oil haul in that area. We have just agreed to do that and I think we have sent a letter indicating that. If we haven't - (Interjection) - yes, we have. MR. J. DOWNEY: The Member for Virden will be happy. MR. H. GRAHAM: That's for acquisition of right-of way, is it? HON. S. USKIW: No, that's to take over the road from municipal status to provincial status because of the oil haul in that area. I guess that is in the constituency of the Member for Virden. I'm not certain. Further down, Mr.

Chairman, we have been in discussions with the R.M. 's with respect to 256 and with respect to relocation to straighten out some of 256 before we do a rebuilding. That is under way. We have not yet formally taken over the new route, but we are negotiating with them to move 256 over to the west, from the area just south of Cromer down towards St. Claire, so that we don't have that jog in that road. I believe there is a resolution asking for that and we have concurred with that. So, you know, we are making some moves.

They are not all big dollar moves, but they're all in the right direction, so the spirit is there, Mr. Chairman. With respect to 452 from Waskada north, I took a tour of that area, in fact, that whole area last year, and I had agreed that 452 should be done. It was to be done, but we decided that was one that had to be chopped out when we lost some $20 million of program value. That's one that had to bite the dust this year, Mr. Chairman, amongst a number of others, but it was my opinion that it should have been done, and it had to be put on the shelf.

Now just while I'm on that one, I want to remind the Member for Arthur whether he can recall who was the Minister when that highway was rebuilt from Waskada north. It wasn't anyone in the last four years, I am told. It was rebuilt during the Burtniak years. Now what the member wants is a little bit of hard surface on it and I don't fault him for that either, but we are just a little short of money this year. So we'll have to be a little more patient on that one, although I concur that there is a need there.

With respect to Trans-Canada Hig hway, we have concluded what is considered to be a satisfactory agreement with the Oak Lake community as to the location. There have been meetings between the officials of the department and the local citizens, community, and there seems to a fairly wide consensus as to the location that has now been agreed upon. We are going to proceed on that basis, and that is to the north of Oak Lake. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Arthur. MR. J.

DOWNEY: I want to pursue one other suggestion that I had and I would hope that the Minister would be somewhat interested in it and proceed to consider it. Whether it was a Prog ressive Conser vati ve Government that did some roadwork in our area, whether it was a prior Minister who did some, I believe that all governments, regardless of their political stripe, have a responsibility to, in fact, put roads in places for the people of the Province of Manitoba and not strictly on a political basis.

Will the Minister of Hig hways consider establishing of - because I have some difficulties just leaving this decision totally to the engineers of the Department of Highways, because I have seen highways built in area tha t I sometimes would question as the member repres enting that constituenc y, as I'm sure other members of other constituencies would have difficulties in seeing justifica tions for thos e roads - a local comm ittee of R.M. s and towns that are in that area, resource-producing area, where in fact they could sit down through a task force approach and do some local priorization on the kind of road development that should be done in that area, not leave it totally in the hands of the engineers, not leave it totally in the hands of the partisanship approach by either of the political parties, but have more local input, because the Minister ind icates that it was a polit ical de cision by his colleagues, he wanted the road built north of Waskada.

I hope they appreciate the fact that there could be some school children that bite the dust in that area if, in fact, it isn't dealt with, because to see that road at 4:00 in the afternoon with semis' tailgate to front bumper, Mr. Chairman, with the dust as high as the hydro wires and not able to see what is coming one way or the other, both big trucks meeting and school buses on that road, is not a situation that I want to be responsible for as an MLA.

I know this Minister of Hig hways, as well, does not want to be the Minister responsible if a tragic accident were to take place, and I'm not trying to paint a hand-wringing situation that may or may not happen. The potential hazard is there and I want to make it very clear on this record that I have put it here with that concern in mind because it is, in fact, a matter of dealing with heavy truck transportation, school buses, and normal traffic that the farm community would use it for enroute between Waskada and No. 3 Highway. It is not just a matter of the weight; it is a matter of the danger factor.

Dealing with Hig hway 256, and the Minister refers to a count of - and I'm talking particularly between the Reston portion of 256, No. 2 Hig hway and Cromer, and I do appreciate the Minister has made some attempt to straighten it out - Mr. Chairman, I have to again bring to the attention of the committee, I would question the Department of Hig hways' statistics or traffic count, when I know for sure that there are at least 50 big trucks daily in a 24-hour period going up loaded and coming back empty - 50 trucks.

That is not considering the fact that there is a lot of grain hauled on that particular route; that there is a lot of traffic moving between the Town of Cromer and Reston. It's a trading centre. I would challenge any Minister or any member of his department to go out and sit on that road, because he's got some hundreds of staff that are going to be maintained on unemployment this year without a job to do because of the cutback of some $20 million. There are many people in his department that should have nothing else to do but go and sit on an approach and count the traffic physically.

They have no other job to do, Mr. Chairman. You know, it may take quite a few of them. If there are 10 trucks, they may need 10 people to count them, but he's going to have them, Mr. Chairman. That's one each. But I challenge the Department of Hig hways and this Minister and this government to come up and prove 2114

Tuesday, 26 April, 1983 that there aren't more than 100 vehicles a day on that particular

section of road. I would bet, Mr. Chairman, there are 100 big trucks, excluding all the other traffic that takes place. Mr. Chairman, they may be able to put their highway counters on the road. I remember as a schoolboy we used to increase the traffic count for them quite readily, so the whole question of traffic count could vary. Mr.

Chairman, the Minister has put his points on the record, but I again ask him specifically, would he consider the establishment of a local task force of people because if he remembers correctly, the Minister of Economic Development and some of his other colleagues had a big meeting in Melita, a big meeting in Waskada, telling the people what the oil industry was going to do for them. Now, what is the government going to do for the oil ind ustry to serve that community, precisely dealing with roads?

If he could see fit to invite the mayors and the reeves of some of those communi ti es to put on a comm ittee of road recommendations, to sit down with his engineers and come up with some possible solutions, then I think he would gain a lot more marks than he is at this particular time. Granted, I don't suppose there would be many political marks in that area for him if that's what he's after, but at least I think he would do the industry that's paying a pretty big portion of some of their bills now in both highway licences and big trucks, as well as the revenue taxes that are coming from the province.

You know, getting back to the staff of the Department of Hig hways, when the oil industry started to take off down there, there was no shortage of government inspectors there stopping trucks. It was not uncommon to continually see the flashing lights of the Department of Hig hways stopping, checking licences, and well they should - I think that's their job - but I think in return, Mr. Chairman, for the licences that the people are paying they should get some roads to drive on. I'll let the Minister answer on my suggestion of a local task force to make recommendations on the upgrading of those roads, Mr. Chairman.

HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we pretty well have all of the mechanism that is necessary to respond positively to that specific suggestion; would result in the springing up of hundreds of such task forces throughout the province promoting their local issues, and we do have some of them. We have the 250 Association. There is always that kind of thing under way somewhere and we've responded to them. - (Interjection) - Yes, 355; 83; Yellowhead. We have all kinds of those and we just don't have enough money to be able to respond to them the way we would like to.

To set up another one isn't going to change the numbers in this year's Estimates, and we have had discussions and communications from municipal people in that area, which is the normal way of communication on these kinds of issues, and I'm not unaware of the need, Mr. Chairman. To be more precise about the traffic counts, I have to admit that I used my memory bank when I talked about 256, but I also have to admit that there are variations on a stretch of road, depending on what happens in a particular local situation.

Where the oil fields are producing, naturally there will be sections of that road that are much more densely travelled, if you like, than other sections of the same highway and that has to be looked at. That is a small point, but I'm prepared to bring to the commi ttee when it next meets our traffic count assessments for that area, if the member wishes. I should have had it handy here in any event. I don't think I can say very much except that we are limited this year because of the funds that we must work with and until that changes, you know, we are not going to be able to do too much. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, I have one other area that I want to ask the Minister about and that's on the Treesbank ferry, the bridge that has been requested on 340 over the Assiniboine River, at what particular stage is the acquisition of property to build the bridge or to proceed with that particular project? HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the figure is; maybe the staff can help me with the figure on it. The recollection is that that's about a million-dollar question and the people that live in that area - (Interjection) - MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. HON. S.

USKIW: The utilization factor notwithstanding would be fairly light and there are other ways of getting around the area and I find it difficult to allocate $1 million dollars to an area like that when we're so short of funds. Mr. Chairman, just to complete that statement, that is just for the bridge. There would be many additional dollars spent for approaches and roadway connections and so on. So we're talking about a lot of money for an area th at is very much of a low densit y, low population. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, in concluding my comments, I have no choice but to communicate to the constituency of Arthur and those people who have for the last year, been expecting the positive response to this government. I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Highways is somewhat overridden by some of his colleagues, such as the Minister of Natural Resources or individuals who do not appreciate the kind of economic activity; that he's overridden by some of the individuals in taking money for northern roads, Mr.

Chairman, where there is no attention paid to the safety of the children who travel on those same kinds of roads and any consideration given to the safety factor that I am concerned about. All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that this government under the premiership of Howard Pawley is proving to be the kind of non-caring, misdirected government that the people in that area suspect that he is.

The Minister of Hig hways, I can appreciate the difficulty he has, but I can assure him that he can take a message to his Premier that if he ever comes through that area again without having some response to the people who have waited for him to produce something that would give them some kind of feeling that at least they were a part of Manitoba - but that isn't apparent, Mr. Chairman. There is no move by this Premier who toured through that whole area, wringing his hands and all he came 2115

Tuesday, 26 April, 1983 up with, Mr. Chairman, was that he thought that the priority item was that there were so many people came to see him, having coffee, that they had a problem with foreign ownership of land in the constituency of Arthur. Well, if he missed the point, Mr. Chairman, of the concerns of the people of southw est and he communicates to those people, or tries to come through that area again without payi ng attention to their concerns, then I have to say that he is a bigger disappointment than they now think. - (Interjection) - That's right.

The Member for Lakeside make it very plain - more arenas in Winnipeg and less roads for the oil-producing areas. I regret very much, because I had thought, Mr. Chairman, that this government was fair, that it treated people equally and fairly, but they're proving today that those people who pay the bills can go plumb to the dickens, that they're going to siphon those funds off and put them into areas of their own political concern. I would hope that the Premier will make a tour through that constituency again sometime in the near future.

I would hope he would take a tour through that constituency to hear first-hand and to see the difficulties he's putting that industry through as well as the danger - and this point I want to make and the Premier, I hope, is told this or reads it - he's allowing, the danger that he's putting those children to and the dust conditions on that road particularly north of Waskada, he's had warnings for the last year-and-a-half, and if there is a major or a disastrous accident takes place in that area, this Premier has to wear that for the rest of his life. Mr.

Chairman, we pray to God that it doesn't happen but I want to make sure that I'm giving this government, this Premier, lots of warning that if it does, that he will be the one that will be sorry for it and the people will never forget him for it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I know what the member is saying, but he is overdramatizing a bit. I can point to numerous locations where that argument can be applied, toured every district - well I have to apologize, I haven't toured one and that's District 12 - but all of the other ones I have covered so far.

I have been shown sites, river crossings by antiquated bridges, now one-laners, where that case can be made, that, yes, if there's ever a head-on collision or a death here or whatever, someone should pay the price. I have one of those in my own constituency. I want to invite the Member for Arthur down there for a fishing retreat one day at his leisure and have him cross a long bridge over the Winnipeg River, which was a converted railroad bridge, into a highway bridge. One has to be awfully careful when one is crossing that if one is meeting another vehicle, to avoid collision.

The price tag on that one is in the millions of dollars if we were to replace it - $10 million I'm told - and we keep looking at it and we keep putting it on the shelf, Mr. Chairman, because of the price tag. So the Member for Arthur is not alone in feeling that way. I've been feeling that way for years and still do and I happen to have charge of the program and I still find it difficult to allocate $10 million to the Winnipeg River bridge. So that is a problem, but we have to live with those realities. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, I didn't mean to overdramatize it and the Minister does make a case that I certainly can't hold anybody responsible when an accident takes place. But I want to make it very clear that there aren't 50 semitrailers hauling oil or going empty over that bridge daily as there is on that road north of Waskada, and that's the main point that I want to make. There is a pretty major difference to the two cases and I want that to be on the record as well. I just wanted that picture to be drawn and if I have overdramatized it, then I have. - (Interjection) - I won't withdraw it, Mr.

Chairman, but I do want this Minister of Hig hways to take to his Premier the very fact that he did tour that constituency, he did say that he was on a fact-finding mission. He found out a few facts but he seems to have priorities elsewhere that he's dealing with and is literally telling us that we really don't matter in this provincial society. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's very interesting to go through the various road programs but I understand we're on Planning and Design and I would like to get back to that subject and offer the Minister some of the concerns that I have in the Planning

section and possibly try and save him some money. I refer, Mr. Chairman, in particular, to plans that the Minister must have in his department for the Yellowhead Hig hway, No. 16. No. 16 is rapidly becoming the second Trans-Canada Hig hway in Weste rn Canada. It's a highway, that each year the use is increasing steadily. The use is changing mainly to one of heavy traffic and we are having a problem on the Yellowhead now with heavy traffic, where there are a lot large trucks, heavily laden, that are using that highway and I have to give the truckers a great deal of credit, because they are very courteous drivers.

If a truck is traveling at 45 miles an hour and there is a lot of traffic piled up behind, and because it's only a two-lane highway, they will pull over on the shoulder to allow traffic to pass. But there's a very real danger when they pull onto the shoulder to allow traffic to pass, because the shoulders are gravel and large heavy trucks will throw a lot of stones up. So if there's traffic behind, there's a great deal of reluctance to pass when they pull over on the shoulder because of the flying stones that come up from the truck, when they have given them the courtesy of the centre of the road to get past.

I was wondering if the Min ister has given any consider ation to the pavi ng of shoul der s on the Yellowhead Highway. I suggested to him as a cost-saving measure, we are now approaching position where there are sections of the Yellowhead today, which according to the standards used by the department, qualify it for twinning, and the cost of twinning that highway is exorbitant. I would suggest to the Minister that the department look seriously at the alternative of paving the shoulders rather than twinning the highway.

It would allow for substantial increase in the use of that highway without undue hazard to the traffic, and it would be a cost-saving measure over the other alternative, which is twinning the highway. I would appreciate the Minister's interest or his comments in that possibility. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, maybe this is the appropriate time to mention to the Member for Virden 2116

Tuesday, 26 April, 1983 and members of the commi ttee that at last we have, for the first time, comple ted the paving of our Trunk Hig hway System - the last few miles of the Trunk Hig hway System in Manitoba was completed last year and that was up on No. 20. Up until this point in time, we never had all of our trunk highways paved, so it is, I guess, a milestone, if you like. With respect to the Yellowhead, I think we all recognize that it needs tremendous amount of improvements and they are under way, have been under way now for some years. It's a very important

section between Neepawa and Minnedosa, I believe, that has to be looked at. I don't know whether we can argue that we can speed that process up, given the constraints that we have to work under, but we recognize that the need is there. We have been paving a three-foot strip on each side, additional to the regular lane width on the Yellowhead, in order to allow a better passing situation. The cost of going the full amount is horrendous. It's almost like a four-lane highway system, because you have to put your strength on full width when you do that, if you at all expect to use the shoulders for that purpose.

We just don't see that we can afford that. It's a very expensive proposition and it seems that there are higher priorities at the present time. It may be something that one might consider in the future, but I would think we would even have to widen further if we were to pave shoulders, there would have to be further widening in order to accommodate a paved shoulder. So we're looking at very big dollars there, Mr. Chairman. I'm not saying it wouldn't be desirable, but awfully expensive and our priorities just wouldn't permit for that at the present time. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I'm trying to save the Minister dollars, not have him spend more. I think that perhaps it's time his department takes a good hard look at the standards they are setting for the building and the construction of highways.

Because I happen to believe, and I've seen it in other jurisdictions, where they do not have to widen any further to pave the shoulders, where in fa9t, they have paved the shoulders, and their cost is not that much extra and they have the opportunity, both in Saskatchewan and Alberta, as well as B.C.- B.C. naturally in the mountains, you have a much different program, but in the interior they do have paved shoulders, and their entire grade width is consistent with our grade width. It is not that much wider than what we have at the present time.

So I don't think it is absolutely necessary that we have to have a complete regrading program again, just to pave the shoulders. I think it's entirely possible to put a 10 or a 12 foot shoulder, fully paved on there, that would not be an exorbitant cost and it would give you the increased capacity that the Minister is going to have to look at, because we are reaching maximum densities very rapidly in certain sections of that highway and we have to do something. I'm suggesting to him that he pave the shoulder, rather than go to the expense of twinning. HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I don't foresee a need for twinning on the Yellowhead for a long, long time and I don't think we can accept - at least not at the present time - the suggestion that is offered. I want to mention something that might be of interest to members with respect to the traffic density and I'm now going to talk about tonnage traffic. It's a bit of a shocker - I didn't realize that things were that bad, but at the Heading ley scale, February of this year over February of last year, we witnessed a 60 percent reduction of truck traffic. That tells us quite a bit about economic conditions.

Now, hopefully those will not last, those conditions will not last for too long, but in fact at the moment there is quite a diminishing numb er of trucks moving throughout the highways in Manitoba, because they don't have the goods to haul. MR. H.

GRAHAM: I should also report to the Minister, although he may have some reports in his office, that we see changing patterns develop in the movement of goods and the pattern that seems to be developing in the potash industry, is a move away from the railways to trucks and a tremendous amount of increase in the trucking of potash through Manitoba that has occurred in the past year. It's a brand new volume of traffic that has not occurred in the past, but it has occurred in the last 12 months, and is still presently occurring.

I'm talking about the 50 to 80 trucks per day of potash coming out from Esterhazy, by truck, down - I presume they go south from Brandon, although I'm not too sure where they cross into the States on the Eastern Terminal. But they do use the Yellowhead on the western side of the province and that traffic increase in volume there is tremendous in the last 12 months. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, first of all, would of course, like to comment that I, like some of the other members from sout hwestern Manitoba, have been disappointed in the plans that were circulated by the Minister as to the work in my constituency, but I can see the reason for it and I will look forward to next year's Estim ates, including great thin gs for Gladstone. In the meantime, I would like to ask the Minister about the Brandon area traffic study. What was the cost of the original tender for that study? HON. S. USKIW: What study was that? MRS. C. OLESON: The Brandon area traffic study. HON. S.

USKIW: I would say a good guess would be about one-quarter of a million dollars, give or take $20,000 one way or the other - probably a little under a quarter-of-a-million. MRS. C. OLESON: And what was the final cost of the study? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, that's the figure that I'm giving the member; I don't have the precise amount here. I can get that for her, but it's in that neighborhood, about a quarter-of-a-million. MRS. C. OLESON: Was that close to what the figure had been provided for that study, the initial cost? HON. S. USKIW: No.

There were two adjustments to the original figure which brought it up to that level. I can't recall what the original figure was. 21 17

Tuesday, 26 April, 1983 MRS. C. OLESON: Could you get that information? HON. S. USKIW: Yes that's readily available. MRS. C. OLESON: Okay, thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for lnskter. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I think I'd like to commend the Minister first for the courageous approach that he has taken both in the Estimates here and in the preparation of the Estima tes for the department . . MR. H. ENNS: Suicidal is a better word. MR. D.

SCOTT: . . . in recognizing the difficulties of the cost restraints the province has, and recognizing that in highways, although it's important to maintain highways and maintaining the standards of our highways as best we can, there is a time when we have to look twice at the expansion and upgrading into higher levels, and higher standards in some areas. In the past, I think we've jumped on a band wagon a bit quick in some of our twinning into four-lane highways.

I'd like to know how our standards here, as far as for using the number of the traffic volumes that we use in Manitoba, to justify twinning of a highway, how that would compare with other jurisdictions? I'm thinking, I guess, in particular that our largest neighbour being that of Ontario, and what kind of tonnage, or what kind of vehicle traffic per hour we use or have used in the past? HON. S. USKIW: The staff advise me that it's very di fficult to dr aw compa risons becaus e of many variations in circumstances. Population density is one.

The southern part of Ontario for example, they don't only four-lane, they multi-lane, 16 lanes, and 12 lanes, 8 lanes, and 6 lanes. So it's very difficult to draw a comparison. While in northern Ontario you don't see too much of any of that kind of work so, you know, it's hard to draw that comparison. Saskatchewan has empha sized no rth-south connections more than Trans-Canada Hig hway. They are now going back to Trans-Canada Hig hway as their four-laning priority. So, you know, it's very difficult for us to draw comparisons in that way. What we do have to keep in mind is the service that a roadway provides.

Once traffic starts to back up, and once your accident rates are up and so on, those are the signals that are so visible that one must deal with them. MR. D. SCOTT: I'm wondering, and this goes back a few years, but what kind of standards would have been used to justify the twinning of a highway and the building of two very expensive overpasses; one over a railway, and another over the Trans-Can ada Hi g hway on Hig hway 12 going into Steinbach?

I just cannot imagine the Province of Ontario investing the $8 million to $10 million, which I understand it would cost to finish that road, for ser vicing that sort of a community. It just wouldn't be in the books at all. I just cannot see them committing that kind of funds. MR. H. GRAHAM: That services Winnipeg. MR. H. ENNS: Come on, why didn't you say it? The Mennonites still drive horses and buggies. HON. S. USKIW: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, others would want to make a contribution while I recapture my voice. MR. CH AIRMAN: The Hono urable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Well, Mr.

Chairman, other than advising the Member for lnkster, of cour se, tha t lnkster Boulevard has been doubled lane for many years, I do have a question to Planning and Design. MR. D. SCOTT: It isn't doubled, it isn't doubled all the way, there's quite a chunk of it that isn't. MR. H. ENNS: Most of the way. MR. D. SCOTT: Well. MR. H. ENNS: But the question I have to Planning and Design, and the Minister may want to take this a notice while he gets the information for the Member for lnkster, that has to do with current departmental planning and design for the extension of Hig hway 67.

I know the Minister, and the department is well aware of that situation. It was an ongoing concern. I know that the Minister will be aware of the buzz words that are used, the south route versus the three mile corner, etc. HON. S. USKIW: We need your advice, Harry. MR. H. ENNS: But I would ask the Minister what is the current planning and design for potential extension of Highway 67 in that area of the province? Does it include, for instance, a river crossing? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I would start by responding to the Member for lnkster and indicate to him that traffic buildups are not always consistent.

It depends on the locations, it depends on the nature of the highway, whether it's a highway that services a local need as well as a resort need, and therefore at certain periods of the year and certain parts of the week you have extreme density, while in other times you don't have as great a need for that kind of service. So we have to make some decisions based on what we consider to be the need on its worst condition, if you like.

That's more from a safety point of view, and mod ify somewhat from that position back to measure the actual daily traffic that is local to the area and so on, or if it's traffic that moves from one community to another on a regular basis. No. 75 Hig hway is a good example of fairly consistent traffic movements. No. 44 Highway is a highway that peaks on weekends all summer long and severely peaks - there must be 20,000 cars in a day or more, because the average is about 4,000 east of 59 Hig hway on an annual daily basis. So during that summer period the peak must be very, very high.

The same can be said, well, no, the Hig hway to Steinbach has more of a level situation in that (a), there's 2118

Tuesday, 26 April, 1983 no railroad in Steinbach, and that's something that ought to be noted. Their only means of transportation is trucks and cars. They don't have a railway line. So their traffic pattern is more consistent than some of the other routes that we talk about. I don't think that I would want to make the argument that the twinning of No. 12 to Steinbach was a mistake for that very reason.

I've travelled that highway many times, and many times I know that I have been frustrated in following a person that had a lot of time and where the traffic oncoming was such that I couldn't get around a slow driver to get on with where I was going, so I have no negative reflections on the decision of the previous admin istration in that regard. I think the evidence was there and they dealt with it. We will be doing similar things, I'm sure, in other parts of Manitoba.

The program that we have before us is the beginning of that same exercise on Hig hway 44 to Beausejour, which will take several years to complete, but the beginning is already there for the same reason; the difference there being that we have a massive peak situation during the summer season tha t simply aggravates a local situation. I don't know that I can give the kind of answer to the Member for lnkster that he might be looking for. We have to look at statistics; we have to look at accident rates; what do we feel is optimum from the point of view of costs and benefits.

That's all I can say in response to his question. With respect to Hig hway 67 that the Member for Lakeside raises, I don't know why the Member for Lakeside didn't do it when he was Minister, excepting that he had the same problem that I guess I am having, trying to find a consensus in a community that doesn't want to have a consensus. We have received petitions, several hundred names, suggesting certain locations. We have received other petitions suggesting existing locations. I have given an offer to the R.M. of Rockwood and to the Town of Stonewall.

I want to tell the Member for Lakeside what my preference would be. My own personal preference would be a southern location, but I would like to unload the northern one as a provincial responsibility. I don't think we can afford two access routes into the Town of Stonewall, just simply because of the cost of each. We are looking at millions of dollars, and a mile apart to have two access routes into a small community is not what I would consider wise spending by any department, but certainly not by the Department of Highways.

If the local council would take from our responsibility the existing route under municipal jurisdiction, then I would be inclined to say, yes, let's link up 67 in a straight east-west system which bypasses the Town of Stonewall, marginally speaking, just on the edge of the town, and carries on all the way to Lower Fort Garry. That would make sense. We would have to also make a new connection at No. 7, because I wouldn't want to have the traffic entering No. 7 turning right or left, depending on direction, and then making another turn on 67, east of No. 7.

It would create safety problems and, in particular, on an expressway. So if we were to do that, we would have to, in my opinion and I haven't discussed that with - oh yes, we have, very briefly - our engineers, but it would seem to me that we would have to make a new crossing and abandon the old one to tie in the highway from the east of No. 7 to the portion going west of No. 7. I'm not sure that there is any great need for a connection across the Red River for Highway 67. I don't know where that traffic is going to be going.

The traffic volume west of Stonewall is about 100 vehicles a day; east of Stonewall to Winnipeg, only for those three miles, it's about 4,000 a day, I think, between - yes, I think that's right - but it cuts off at No. 7 Highway. There isn't a great deal of movement between the Red River and Stonewall that would warrant that kind of connection at this point in time at least. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hour being 10:00, what is the pleasure of the members of the commit tee? MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just pursue this point to a conclusion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Carry on for awhile. The Member for Lakeside. MR.

H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, aside from that little difference, of course, the Minister says, why didn't I resolve the question when I was a Minister, there is of course the little difference because I have to get elected in that part of the world and so I'm sure the Minister appreciates that is a fundamental difference. However, I appreciate the Minister's comments with respect to his preference with respect to extension of 67.

Would the Minister be prepared to put on record that, in fact, from a Planning and Design position - and I say without trying to be cute about it - as I recall, my information in the time that I was in the Minister's position that that in fact was the, if you want to call it, original Planning and Design destination of a future extension of Hig hway 67. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. I don't know what that has to do with the bridge question over the Red River. There is a bridge at Lockport.

Hig hway 67 terminates at Lower Fort Garry, which is about a mile -and- a-half no rth of Loc kpor t or two mil es, somewhere in there. So logical ly, I guess what the Member for Lakeside is talking about is a future design which would link up 67 directly accessing the Lockport Bridge, or a new bridge that might be built beside the existing one. That's the question tha t I am rais ing with the department. I don't know that we can justify two bridges a half a mile or three-quarters of a mile apart.

The need for a new bridge is in the Selkirk community because of the flood problems in the area and because of the tonnage limitations that we must impose on that old Selkirk Bridge in order to give it additional life. The feeling in that area, the feeling of the Selkirk community is that should be a northern location rather than a southern location, and I can understand that from a Chamber of Commerce point of view. There is a bit of a push for making the Interlake a major route that would connect up with 59 and 44. That would be through the Narrows and across at Selkirk, for example.

That makes a lot of sense if you want to talk about another major route, because the 67 route runs parallel to Trans-Canada Highway, just a few miles apart, and I just can't imagine us spending tens of millions of dollars creating a major highway 2119

Tuesday, 26 April, 1983 system so close to Trans-Canada when I think that there is a lot to be offered via the Interlake, Ste. Rose, Dauphin and on. The Yellowhead already does its work for Neepawa, Gladstone, Minnedosa, Russell, those communities. I think it would be wise to look at Dauphin, Ste. Rose, as to how they fit into the highway pattern and how the public would want to travel as an alternate route somewhat away from Trans-Canada Hig hway. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Well, Mr.

Chairman, allow me to put on the record that I, by and large, intend to support that Minis ter's remarks that he just made. I'm aware, because I tra vel that pa rt of the province quite frequently, that the traffic really does diffuse north or south at No. 7, you know, and the justification for continuation of a major program crossing the river so close to parallel bridges, I would have to share the Minister's comments and I'm pleased to hear him state the same. Allow me then just to come back to the question.

No. 1, I'm aware, of course, of fairly substantial costs that the department has incurred in providing the access at what are now called the Northern Road, or the 3- mile corner, in linking, crossing and accessing traffic to the now access road to Stonewall with the new facility, the double-lane No. 7 facility. Can I just leave it at this and that'll be my final comment on this? Will that not necessarily prejudice the department's position in the future in terms of resolving the north-south route question?

There is, I think, a legitimate concern by my taxpayers in the Stonewall area who, after all, see the department expending considerable monies in making that a safe and properly planned and designed access to Stonewall at this time, but that need not be read necessarily as a final and total commitment as to future designation of Highway No. 67, that there is in the department's mind and this government's mind the distinct possibility if, as the Minister says, we clean up our own act in Stonewall, in Rockwood.

If we can provide the Minister with the kind of necessary support that favours what I still believe to be - and I think the Minister confirmed to some extent in his own words and he was speaking for the department - a kind of basic favour of the natural southern extension of 67, without implications of future river crossings, but simply allowing it in a properly planned and designed way to meld and meet with No. 7, No. 8 and subsequently No. 9, along with what we call the bog road, the department's position is not prejudiced because of the crossings and infrastructure that you've made at the present northern access to No. 7 Hig hway.

I appreciate the Minister's comments about provision of two access routes in effect from that eastern portion to the community of Stonewall. I can't leave on the record his comm ents about servi ng tha t small, insigni ficant commu nity of Stonewall. Stonewall happens to be a thriving, growing centre in the Interlake and I'm sure if I just gave the Minister an opportunity he'll want to correct that. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I want the member to know that I didn't say "small and insignificant." Stonewall is a very important community, but it is indeed a small community and it doesn't warrant two expensive access routes into that community. We can't afford to give each community such expensive access routes in the multiple and we must choose between one or the other and I'm prepared to make a deal with the local people, Mr. Chairman. But I don't want to get into a speech because the member has the floor. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we ready to pass 3.(

a) and (b)? HON. S. USKIW: No. The member has the floor. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, just a final note. I read the Minister's comments correctly, then. His preference would be for natural extension on the southern road of No. 67 provided that the communities of Stonewall and Rockwood would co-operate with him in making that possible. Mr. Chairman, it's hard to record a nod on the public record. HON. S. USKIW: I haven't got the floor. MR. H. ENNS: I'm relinquishing the floor. HON. S. USKIW: The member wants to give me the floor, Mr. Chairman.

I tend to think that that is probably a good arrangement, but I have to repeat that the co operation that the member alludes to has to be the takeover of the existing route. We are not prepared to spend $2 million or $3 million on rebuilding the existing route, and another $2 million or $3 million to provide a new route. It's just too much money for what is needed there and I believe that the Member for Lakeside agrees with that analysis and I appreciate his support. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(

a) and (b) - the Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I just have two short questions to follow up what I was going after before. I'm wondering how much the reduction in a speed limit to 90 kilometres an hour which has been in a couple years now, how much that impacts the problem of having traffic boxed up behind vehicles or with slower moving because it's about six or seven miles an hour different, traffic is about 55 miles an hour in old terms? HON. S. USKIW: We don't have that information here, but we'll check to see whether we have that so that we have the information when we next meet. MR. D.

SCOTT: I would think that those sorts of reductions should have, or as the speed is reduced, the kind of backlogs on the traffic of people trying to get by, or bottlenecks, I might say, would be reduced. The other thing is, has the department considered at all - as I've seen in some other jurisdictions in driving through - instead of twinning a whole highway where it's not that high a demand area, that they go for 15 miles or so for two lanes, then they go into four lanes for a period of, maybe, three miles or four miles to let the people get by.

That way it doesn't gobble up anywhere near as much farmland and it's something I'd like to see protected is to not be taking too much 2120

Tuesday, 26 April, 1983 farmland for our highways and it does not then impede the traffic because no one has got any more than 15 minutes behind someone, if they can't pass and in most instances to be breaking the speed limit if they wanted to pass any way. I know I do usually when I . . . HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I don't look upon four laning as a major burden that we can't meet, because I look at four-laning in a very limited way. Manitoba's population is not growing at all hardly, it's a static population, therefore, the traffic densitie s are not building up all over the province.

If they are, they're only building up around Winnipeg. There may be a bit of it around Brandon, from Brandon to No. 2 Hig hway maybe, on No. 10, something like that. There aren't many miles that we're talking about in essence. You know, No. 75 Hig hway, if we get that done to Morris, Manitoba, that's about as far as we'll go for many years. No. 59 is almost finished; it only needs one more contract and it's finished as far as twinning is concerned. No. 44 is only a 16-mile stretch and that's all we'll be doing there for years and years, but it'll take out that bottleneck.

The only long-term one is Trans-Canada and we don't have to push that any faster than we are able to. In fact, we've slowed it down this year. The only other one I can think of is the No. 8 Hig hway to the beach areas, west of the lake; that is still a problem highway and we will have to do something there. How many miles is it to Winnipeg Beach? From Parkdale, where we are now, it's about 30 miles on No. 8. I don't see this - I believe that by the end of a decade that the four-laning question will be behind us in any event.

It's not something that is going to be there forever, unless we have a major population explosion, which I don't foresee in Manitoba. So it's not as if we have a long way to go with it, and we can pace it. Once we complete the critical areas, we can pace the more distant points a bit more. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do the members still want to go on? MR. D. ORCHARD: Oh sure. We're going to finish this tonight, Mr. Chairman. HON. S. USKIW: We want to finish this item. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we want to pass this item, right? The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Out of curiosity, could the Minister indicate what the traffic count on the Easterville road is west of P.R. 327? HON. S. USKIW: I have the figures, Mr. Chairman, but not here. We can get them for him. MR. D. ORCHARD: I think that would have been . MR. CHAIRMAN: They'll be available. 3.(a) ... HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, while we are on that, perhaps I should respond a little more. The interest of the Easterville road lies in the fact that we will be cutting off about 70 miles of distance between The Pas and 2121 Winnipeg, so that will make quite a difference in traffic patterns once that road is finished.

Seventy miles is a considerable saving to a lot of people that commute between or that travel between The Pas and Winnipeg, and Flin Flon, it's that whole area. So it's a significant improvement for those people in that part of Manitoba. MR. D. ORCHARD: The Minister is correct, and I just want to remind the Minister of significant improvements in other parts of Manitoba that have been neglected. HON. S. USKIW: Fair comment. MR. D. ORCHARD: Can the Minister indicate what has happened in the Morden-Winkler corridor?

We were planning for the upgrading and four-laning between those two communities because of a significantly high traffic count. HON. S. USKIW: The planning people tell me that we're at the stage of having a number of plans or options there, but we haven't gone beyond that at this stage. MR. D. ORCHARD: I would like to volunteer my services at some time in the off-summer to have a look at those plans and critique them along with the Minister in full co-operation. How are the barriers on the Perimeter. . . HON. S. USKIW: You gave that position up two years ago. MR. D.

ORCHARD: I am offering my services to help you, not hinder you. How are the barriers on Perimeter Hig hway working out? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the area in question there has to do with the severity of winter. Since those were built or established on that route, we haven't had winter to speak of, that is with a lot'of snow and stormy activity and so on. Otherwise, it appears that they've been well accepted by the public. MR. D. ORCHARD: Would you suspect they have been well enough accepted to install them between Heading ley and the Perimeter? HON. S. USKIW: I know what the member is leading up to.

He's trying to save us a lot of money and that's fair game. The problem is, we have to have turning lanes and just putting up a stone barrier doesn't give us the flexibility that we need for turning lanes. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(a) - the Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That, of course, could be worked into turning lanes with a little bit of the engineering ingenuity that we have in the department. I am sure that they can come up with a design there that would work quite nicely and avoid some, I think, $24 or $25 million was the last number I took a look at for that 4.5 miles.

P.T.H. 10 south of Brandon, at one time there was some talk about twinning that. I don't see any survey

Tuesda y, 26 April, 1983 and design or planning on that. There is an area where some of the hills are the problem. HON. S. USKIW: That's a

section of No. 10, that I am familiar with, Mr. Chairman. I think I alluded to that a moment ago in response to the Member for lnkster. No. 10 is one of them in that Brandon area that would be a candida te for standard service improvement, but I believe the need for it terminates at No. 2 Highway. I believe the traffic count south of No. 2 falls off rather dramatical ly. No. 2 Highway tends to funnel traffic into No. 10 and into Brandon. So I would think that stretch would be a candida te for major improvement, and we are at the stage of preliminary design on that. MR. D. ORCHARD: Having driven that

section a few times, I find the biggest - probably an improvement that would take you a long way in towards the turn of the century would be a few extra lanes going uphill. That's that hilly stretch, particularly from the north junction of No. 2 into Brandon. Wher ever the department has installed that extra passing lane on the upside of one of those hills, it certainly helped a lot of the traffic bottlenecks.

I think that might be a minimal expenditure that could well take you through, because I'm sure the Minister recognizes, as does his staff in Planning and Design, that it takes quite a crystal ball to envision what an investment in highway which, you know, is going to be a 50-year investment, how much of it is going to be required 50 years from now, what our traffic patterns are going to be like.

The dramatic drop-off that the Minister alluded to at Heading ley, a 60 percent drop off in truck traffic, certainly we hope is a temporary thing, but there has been a lot of discussion lately about very major improvements in our rail system. I think it's conceivable that rail could take over a lot of the inner city hauling on a number of things and remove some of the pressure on our highway systems. Mr. Chairman, I think that is about all the questions I have on that. The only question I would like to finish on is, I see that Planning and Design has lost - what? - 2.79 SMYs.

What are those staff that are no longer with Planning and Design? HON. S. USKIW: Most of that is summer students. They're normally hired for data collection, Mr. Chairman. MR. D. ORCHARD: The drop in expenditures, is that envisioned to seriously impede the Planning and Design function of the department? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, that is a marginal drop. No doubt that we are slowing down the overall program and this

section will feel the impact of that. It will result in, I suppose, what you might call less adequate data in dealing with subdivision applications. That's what this area is involved with. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(a)- pass; 3.(b)- pass. Resolution 98, Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceed ing $1,859,700 for Hig hways and Transportation for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1984- pass. Commit tee rise. SUPPLY - EDUCATION MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: The committee come to or der .

We are considering the Esti mates of the Department of Education, Item 3.(a), Financial Support, School Grants and Other Assistance. The Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, going back to the Public Schools Finance Board and the new policy with the $3 million block funding, I guess you would call it, to the school divisions and the priorities being given to the renovations to divisions, does that mean that the priorities would be given to, say, divisions who have let their schools run down?

When I'm saying that, I'm thinking of the school division in my area, which has always had a long-term policy of upgrading no matter what happens with the Public Schools Finance Board, and there's just been an ongoing fac ility renovation with the division. I just would like that part explained a little bit further, what the plans are in that area. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHIL L: Mr.

Chairman, I think that the miscellaneous capital portion of the Public Schools Finance Board task has been what I might call a festering sore for a number of years, where school divisions were required to go through hoops, submitting a lot of information and a lot of requests over what we would consider to be minor, miscellaneous capital items. Now, there is a difference between major renovation items and the minor, or the miscellaneous capital. So that on the one hand the policy, the three-year capital plan, that is the policy for giving approval to the building of schools also includes major renovation.

Any major renovation would fall into that category. The $3 million is strictly in the area that you would call miscellaneous capital and it is the little things, the minor renovations and repairs that they do around the school all the time just in order to keep it up.

As I said previously they had to submit proposals and have them all viewed and approved, and the Public Schools' Finance Board has come up with a formula and I don't think we have it here before us tonight, but when we deal with the Public Schools' Finance Board under Capital, perhaps if you're interested in having the criteria based on the age and the condition of the schools. They worked it out fairly carefully and made sure that no school divisions would be getting less money than they had received under the old method.

I think the major di fference is that they get a block sum based on what they're entitled to, a portion of the $3 million and they then decide where to use the money themselves. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member of Kirkfield Park. * MRS. G. HAMMOND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, is the Minister saying that the major renovations then should come under Capital, the explanation for that part of it? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 2122

Tuesday, 26 April, 1983 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon ourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to discuss with the Minister and the comm ittee I think a matter of some significance. In this massive expenditure and in this particular resolution that we're discussing is an item, first of all, on the public school system, and second ly, on the private and parochial school system. I would like to discuss both of these matters because I think the two correlate in the sense of, if money is expended in one particular area, it may have an effect on the quality of education in another.

I want to in particular point to the specifics here, because it was only a few months ago in February when in a government press release what app ears to be an inno cuous line from the department was indicated as follows: "Private school support increased from $435 per full-time equivalent student to $480 effective Jan uary 1, 1983." Mr. Chairman, this is, in fact, the first time that a New Democratic Government has provided additional direct assistance to private and parochial school students.

If we go back over this issue - it's been an issue in our province I guess for about the last 90 to 100 years - and those of us who have been around for a while, recall that in the mid 1960s - (Interjection) - Well, I go back to '66. I think the Honourable Member for Wolseley was in high school at that time. A mother with two kids in high school . . . Mr.

Chairman, if we go back over this issue without tracing it historically over the past century, there was, in fact, a new development, a significant development in the 1960s, when the Roblin administration brought in what was called "shared services," and this seemed to be a solution to a very complex problem. When the Schreyer administration followed, the policy of shared services continued and ther e was, in fact, some enrichme nt and some extension of this particular program, so that one might say, I think correctly, that there was indirect aid being given under the Sch reyer admin istration.

But when the Lyon Government took over in 1977, without any reference to this question during the election campaign, they all of a sudden decided to provide direct aid to private and parochial schools. Our government, the Pawley administration, came into office and in the first year made no change in the existing policy, but this year has decided to increase the amount of aid by 10 percent. Mr. Chairman, my concern is that this could be, in fact, the thin edge of the wedge that leads to a full 100 percent government public funding of private and parachial schools.

Because once the course or the direction is set, and once the policy is continued - and this may be an aberration or an exception - but if the policy persists, then I think it could, in fact, lead to complete funding of private and parochial schools and to the eventual establishment of a separate school system at the expense of the public school system. Mr. Chairman, I come here tonight to defend the public school system of our province, and I am conc erned about the fact that

whereas there are problems in the private and parochial school system, which is drawn to the attention of members at this particular time, that monies that are siphoned off or transferred to the private and parochial schools will only weaken the program and the policies of the public school system. We all know that the public school system is under pressure. We all know that the public school system is under attack. We all recognize that the public school system is under stress from declining enrolments, from school closings and from cutbacks.

We all know that heyday and the great day and the time when money seemed to be unlimited in terms of providing what is needed for the public school system, we know that period - I guess the golden age which was somewhere in the 1960s when my colleague, the Member for Concordia, and I were first elected to this cham ber, and through the 1970s - we now know that there are in fact some severe pressures, financial, and limitations on the public school system.

So, there is kind of a double attack; namely, there are the normal criticisms and the normal weaknesses and the normal limitations of the public school system compounded by financial and fiscal restraints and now compoun ded by an ever growi ng, ever increasing number of private and parochial schools. Mr. Chairman, we're talking here about an amount of $3 million that the Conservatives provided annually.

They started out in their admin istration under the Honourable Keith Cosens with a grant of $200 or so per student and then doubled it to some $435 and now the government has decided to increase that amount by 10 percent, an additional $300,000.00. So we now have an amount of $3,300,000 provided by the Pawley admin istration. If that money were given to public schools in Manitoba, it could certainly save a series of programs that are now being eliminated; that could be continued.

It could, in fact, allow us to implement new programs and improve the public school system, which is our responsibility; but the problem is, of course, that when one begins to transfer monies across to a competitive system, that the net result may be the transference of students to another system. My argument , Mr. Chairman, is that although organizations and individuals and churches have the right to establish private and parochial schools and parents have the right to send their children to such schools, the taxpayers should only be required to support the public school system.

Private and parochial supporters have an obligation to support the system of their choice. Mr. Chairman, when we look at the papers, I mean we see nothing but the probl ems of de cli ning enrolments. I've had this issue, I face this issue in my own riding. It's a particular problem of the inner core of the City of Winnipeg and we know that it not only extends from the elementary schools, but goes on right through junior high, high school and to the post secondary level, because there's only so much money for education.

Every dollar taken out of the amount allocated to the public school system can only be at the expense of people in the public school system, whether they are in kindergarden or whether they are in postgraduate training. The entire range and panoply is in fact affected. I would like to also mention, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has made some other enrichments. I won't explain all of these, she's more than capable of doing that. I know she also provided a new system of giving grants to private schools, which she indicated in a letter, in 2123

Tuesday, 26 April, 1983 October that there's going to be a new payment system which would be of an additional value of some $179,000 just simply in the manner in which cheques are written and payments are made. Then there are all kinds of linguistic support programs and so on that are provided by the department.

But here is my concern, and it's not only in quality, which is really what counts, but it's in the quantity and in the raw numbers and the raw figures where my concern is, because we hear people everyday saying we're concerned about the fact that the quality of education in the public school system is slipping. Well, of course, we've heard this since the dawn of history. But, you know, we hear this and we hear parents saying that they are taking their children out because they want this type of a moral education, or they want a stricter discipline, or they want this, or they want that, etc. We hear it both ways.

We also know that the public school system has a lot of advantages, and a lot of programs, and a lot of variation, and a lot of facilities and equipment, and so on which are not available in the private and parochial school system, although they can often be accessed through the program of shared services. Mr. Chairman, let me just read some numbers to you as an example to show the trends that are going on in our province that I think have to be drawn to the attention of all the legislators and have to be a serious concern of all members of this particular Legislature.

You know, the private and parochial school system, and I don't know why this happened, but in the early 60s to the early 70s, there was a decline in their enrolment. I don't know why that happened. I don't know the explanation for it. I only know that the numbers went down, but starting in 1973 to the present, I believe in every single year, the numbers have gone up and the number of schools has significantly increased. Let me just give you an example. In 1973, there were 7,073 students in private schools in the province and there were 39 schools. Those numbers then started to rise.

So that, for example in 1978, there were 8,345 students, which would be about a 20 percent increase, and there were 56 schools, which would be, I suppose, about a 40 percent to 50 percent increase, going right on to 1982 when you have 9,263 students which is up 30 percent in that 10-year period, and you have 79 schools. So there is a tremendous increase in the number of schools. My information is that there are a lot of new small schools that a re springing up all throughout the province, particularly in the rural area.

I don't have the numbers for this and I know I have a list somewher e of these schools, but tha t is the information that I have. There is quite a development in terms of new private and /or paroch ial schools throughout the province. So what's the picture, Mr. Chairman? In the last decade, a significant increase in the number of students, 30 percent, and a doubling, 100 percent increase in the number of schools. Now let's look at the public school system. As my colleague from Concordia says, it's going down and all of us are aware of that. So what do we have?

In 19 73, you have, in the Mani toba Department of Education's Annual Report, 234,000 students. If you look about five years later, you have about 215,000 students. Then if you take the 1982 figures, you are down to 200,000. What do we observe there? Well probably about a 15 percent decline in the enrolment in the public school system. Now, you know, if we want to just talk logically and push these arrows and push these numbers, I suppose one might draw the conclusion that eventually the two systems will be about equal in terms of number.

Well, that, of course, is not going to happen either ever or for a very long time, but those are the trends. Namely, the trends are No. 1, a decline in the number of students enrolled in our public system; and a significant increase in the number of students att ending private and parochial schools. Now, when you start throwing dol lars at those two numbers, it means that eventually you will put less money into the public school system and more money into the private and parochial school system.

Of course, there are those people who will tell you that the two should be equally funded; there are those who argue that private and parochial school parents should get their tax money or full grants or whatever. All of us, Mr. Chairman, are being subjected to letter writing campaigns and petitions and meetings and so on. We all have received correspondence at this time of year from parents, school boards, individuals, and so on, who say - and of course they have been saying this for a long time and they'll continue to say it. Mr. Chairman, they have every right to say it.

They have every right to defend their position, to make their position, to fight for what they believe in, and to demand what they consider to be 100 percent funding. What concerns me is that there doesn't seem to be anybody in this Chamber who is speaking out for the other side, and that's one of the reasons I want to make these remarks today in this particular resolution and this particular department. I hear the voices who are saying, give us more money, and I don't hear enough.

I don't mean to criticize the Minister here because the Minister is defending the public school system all the time, but I'm saying in terms of other members in the Chamber and so on. I hear the voice of the Member for St. Norbert who is saying that there should be significant increases in funding and who was quoted not too long ago at a particular debate - I'm looking at the Free Press here, I think, February 8, 1983, who says - "If the Tories had been elected in 1981, they would have increased funding to private schools on a formula basis." Well, why didn't they say that in the election campaign?

Why didn't they say that in 1977? Why isn't that incorporated into their particular platform? Mr. Chairman, we had a debate in this Chamber a long time ago; I guess it must have been in the early '70s. We had a resolution put in this particular House. In that pa rticular resolution, I don't know about everybody on that side, but I know that the Member for Sturgeon Creek voted against that resolution, which seemed to be leading to aid to private and parochial schools and he nods in agreement that he did. The Member for Fort Garry op posed that particular resolution. The Member for Lakeside opposed it.

The Mem ber for Virden op posed it. The Mem ber for Minned osa opposed it and the Member for Roblin Russell. Those are only of those who are still here. Now, there may be some that I've left out because I think the vote was about 18-1 on the Conservative side with only the Honourable Sid Spivak perhaps voting 2124

Tuesday, 26 April, 1983 the other way. Well, somebody voted 18-1 on the other side of the issue, but there is only one particular person who did so, Mr. Chairman, and I, myself, voted with those members against that particular resolution. There were four or five Cabinet Ministers who did so. There are another six or seven back benchers on this particular side who did so. So, Mr. Chairman, I will simply make one more particular comment and then wait to hear any response from the other side and then I may add a few more remarks.

I think it is fair to say that the teachers of this province, and I'm now thinking of the public school teachers in particular, and MAST, and I think the Minister who was at one time the president of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees or for a number of years, their official positions are opposed to aid to private and parochial schools because of their concern for the public school system and because of the fear or the danger of establishing and enriching and encouraging a compe titive private and parochial school system. So, Mr.

Chairman, I'll conclude at this time by reading to you the resolution passed by the MAST organization a couple of years ago, 1981, at their convention, because I think they made an excellent statement on this particular matter. It was a formal resolution on grants to private schools, but this is what they said in their book of resolutions. I read from their '81 book of resolutions, Page 8 - "Grants to Private Schools" - "M AST has never had a policy on whether private schools should receive public funds until this year.

A resolution was passed at our recent annual meeting, which puts our association on record as being opposed to public funding of private schools. The public school system is required by law to provide education to all children regardless of financial status, race, colour or creed. Trustees are anxious that our public school system be as successful as possible in providing a good education for our children and in meeting their individual needs.

This can only be done with proper funding by the government; and if part of the necessary funding is siphoned off to support private schools, the public school system may suffer. The resolution does not suggest that private schools should be eliminated. There may be a need for their existence, but that need sho

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-54b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 54b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3acf280b0c11d81b7d0607285f4add3523c49981

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