Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 13B (32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-13b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 15 March, 19 82 Time - 8:00 p.m. MR. CHAIRMAN, Harry M. Harapiak (The Pas): The Member for Ni akwa. MR. ABE KOVNA TS (N iakwa): 4. (f) , Page 95, Con servation Di stricts. I ju st wanted to make a couple of remarks and then I'm prepared to go as fast as the former Honourable Min ister of Natural Resources. Well, I was busy over the su pper hour checking to see what questions I could ask the Honourable Min ister, but I'd ju st lik e to make some comments rather than some questions on the (

f) part, the 4.(f )(1) and the few comments are: first of all, I'd lik e to say thank you to the Honourable Mi nister for jus t making the remark that he hopes that we're friends and I would think that obviously we are friends. The thing I would like to point out is that the Opposition seems to be more friendly with the Honourable Min ister than some of his own members. -(I nterjection)- MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order. MR. KOVNATS: I thought that the sequences or the reasons that we went through these were to investi gate the department and not to condemn or to inves tigate the Minis ter in it.

It seems that the Min ister's door is probably more accessible to the members of the Opposition than it is to the members of the government. I would hope that it would be the same but from the questioning it seems that there is no communic ation between the gover nment, the members and the Mini ster. I' m a li ttle bit sorry to see that happen because there should be a closer com munication particularly with the government members. I was going to ask some questions and I' ve lost my notes from before 5:30, so I ju st k�pt on talking but I think that I'll ju st pass at this time. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Pembina. MR. DON ALD ORCHARD (Pembina): Thank you, Mr. Chai rman. Under the Conservation Distr ict Authority, is the Cook's Creek Dis trict this fiscal year a new di strict? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Min ister. HON. AL MA CKLING (St. James): Mr . Chairman, I under that the Cook's Creek Conservation District came in in 19 79. MR.

ORCHARD: Now, there is only one caution I have, and I don't want the Min ister to take this as a personal com ment, but I read and li stened with a great deal of interest to his Throne Speech Debate, and the Memb er for Lakeside has made reference to it; and I would hope in futur e years, because this Min ister obviously was not here for most of the Esti mate prepara tion and I in no way want to fault him for a stable grant to conservation districts, but conserva tion dis tric ts as he knows and we know, are very necessary parts of the infrastructure available to rural 413 Manitobans to assure that a number of di fferent con cerns are met and ideas are tested.

I would hope that the Min ister in his next year's Esti mate pr esentation can fulfil! some of the expectations he raised amongst Manitobans in his Throne Speech address as to his personal value of conservation dis tricts and foll ows through with next year's Estimates with at least a recognition of that when it comes to the grants por tion and will not see them remain stable, even though he has got a great deal of interest and faith in them. I would hope that he can find the wherewithal to increase the dollars to them in another year. MR. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, I certainly want to confirm my interest in conservation. However my interest in conservation and development of good conservation practice will not be at the preju dice of wanton sp ending and im proper spending. I think if the honourable member does want to see inflated spe nding in this Depar tment I can recognize that but we have to li ve with budget constraints and we are faci ng that problem with the entire bu dget, not only this Department. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Morris. MR.

CL AYTON MANNESS (M orris): Yes, under 4.(f) (i), did all the conservation dis tricts receive an equ ivalent change in funding, that is, no change? Were they all treated simi larly? MR. MACK LING: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that there was no change recommended. MR. MANNESS: For all seven of them? MR. MACK LING: That's correct. MR. MANNESS: Thank you. MR. MACKLING: No one received any di scri mina tory cutting. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(f )(1) - pass; 4. (1)

(2) Other Expendit ures - pass; 4.(f)

(3) Grants and Conserva tion Districts. The Memb er for Dauphin. MR. JOHN PLOH MAN (Dauphin): Mr. Chair man, I asked before about the engineering specifications for natural waterways that are designated as provincial waterways by the Provincia l Government and taken over as provincial waterways. I asked if they were the same in terms of specifications for deal ing with the reconstruction of waterways, it was the same whether the waterways were located in Class 1 or Class 2 soil areas or whether they were different.

I was told at that time that the waterways are constructed according to the same specifications, or to di fferent specifications for di fferent classifica tions of soil, that this was the case. I understand that that is not the case. Now it is my understanding that there is one set of specifications and whether the drain is in a Cla ss 4 or

Monday, 15 March, 19 82 5 area, such as up in the Duck Mountain area for example. it is the same kind of Cadil lac development that is done in reconstructi ng that waterway as is done in Class 1 and 2 soils. I had indicated then that I felt we should be developing specifications that are di fferent for di fferent areas so that we could save money in developing more mile s with less doll ars in some of these areas and therefore get some of these drains reconstructed. I'd ju st like the Min ister to clar ify that. MR. MACK LING: My understanding Mr . Chairman, is that in the past the honourable member is correct.

The desi gn of drains was based on topographical information but the Department is now changing to include soil classification. MR. PLOHMAN: Mr . Chairman, I ju st want to emp hasize that that change should be accelerated in order to accommodate some of these areas where there is a lot of work to be done on drains but where it is not necessary to develop them and reconstruct them in the same way that is done in some of the areas where the classification of soils and the uses is of a high grade, which is Class 1 or 2 soils. MR. MACK LING: My understand, Mr .

Chairman. is the department is working with agricultur e on that very matter. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(g)

(1) Salaries. The Memb er for Spring field. MR. ANDY ANSTETT (Springfield): I thought we were still on (1) (3). MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it was passed, (f)(3) was passed. MR. PLOHMAN: Wel l, that was what I was speak ing on. MR. ANSTETT: The Memb er for Dau phin was speak ing to (f) (3). MR. HARRY ENNS (Lakeside): Mr . Chairman, on a point of order. If the opposition has no opposition to the fact that government members might wish to con tinue the examination of their Min ister. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Spri ngfield. MR. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, my comments are dir ected more to the Memb er for Lakeside than they to an exami nation of the Min ister's Estimates. MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order. MR. ENNS: On a point of order. I would ask you to instruct the honourable member who apparently needs some instructing on House ru les that it's not the Memb er for Lakeside or indeed any other member that is under exami nation here. It is the Min ister and his Estimates. MR. ANSTETT: Mr . Chairman, to the point of order. 414 MR. CHAIRMAN: To the point of order. MR.

ANSTE TT: The examination of the Esti mates is dir ected to the Min ister, but the debate in this Com mittee as in any Committee of the Whole can be engaged in through the Chai rman with any member of the committee, and the Honourable Memb er for Lakeside is aware of that rule as much as I am. If I may proceed, Mr . Chairman, I would like to raise the question that we engaged in jus t before supper with regard to the question of environmental assess ment as it im pacts up on a particular Cordite drain or di version project in the R.M. of Springfield. I have a concern, Mr .

Chairman, that through the mi sguided interject ions of cer tain op position members, you may be under the impression that that drain bears some simi larity ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I stop the Memb er for Spri ngfield? I think we better clar ify what item we're on because there's going to be qu ite a bit of confusion here. What item are you speaking on now? MR. ANST ETT: I'm speak ing on (f) (3), Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, proceed. The Memb er for Spr ingfield. MR.

ANSTETT: I would n't want the Committee or the Minis ter to be under the impression that there's any reason to compare the di version of Assinib oine Riv er waters from that watershed into the La Salle or Red Riv er watershed because what we are talking about in the Cordite Diversion is very spe cifically the di version of flood waters from not ir rigation waters or any other form of waters but strictly flood waters - from one portion of the Red River drainage basin to the Red River Floodway which is in the same drainage basin. With respect, Mr.

Chairman, I would submit that the requir ements for Environmental Im pact Studie s, etc., would be dramatically reduced because of that major difference between the two proposals with respect to both the length of time it would take to do that study and the possi bili ties of that project proceeding - not with haste - but certainly with much more speed than the Memb er for Lakeside suggested in terms of a three or four year delay for an Envir onmental Imp act Study. Also, Mr.

Chairman, I'm wondering what the depart ment has been doing over the last three or four years with regard to encouraging the formation of conser vation di stricts in those areas of the province where they have not been formed, what type of promotion has been done, what type of awareness of the special funding that's availa ble up on formation and the advantages that are available to those partici pating municip alities when they engage in the shared cost aspects of the Conservation District Progr am. MR. MA CKLING: Mr.

Chair man, dealing in reverse order again with the observations or questions in respect to development of further conservation di s tricts, there have been five di stricts developed thus far. It would be our concern to look at additional conservation district development. There has been a hiatus in the development of conservation di stricts in

Monday, 15 March, 19 82 the last while and we'll have to look at further devel opment of them. In respect to the observation regarding transfer of Assinib oine water as against flood water in the Cook's Creek Conservation Dis trict the observations are well founded. There is a di fferent drai nage arrangement involved and, of course, would n't be subjected to the same kind of environmental im pact study. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Memb er for Spring field is now lecturing us on the geography of the Red Ri ver Valley.

Let me assure the honourable member that the di version of Assinib oine waters to the La Salle which both then flow into the Red Ri ver. that water coming in so much later, if the honourable member takes a look at Cook's Creek and La Salle, he could n't tell them apart in terms of scale and scope, size of water bodies involved. They're all in the Red Riv er Valley, all a part of the same drainage system.

I ju st want to put this government on notice, that if its environmental concerns are for sale. politically speak ing, and I accept the Honourable Memb er for I nkster's concern that prior to any change of this kind, environmental impact studies ought to be done. I ju st want to indicate to the honourable member that if that holds true for the diversion of waters from the Assi ni boine to the La Salle it most certainl y holds true for the waters of Cook's Creek within the same basin to the Red Ri ver.

I see the Honourable Memb er for lnk ster at least having sufficient integrity in shaking his head and acknowledging that situation and that, Sir , will very defini tely be a matter of interest to the Op po sition as we see the projects unfold under this government. MR. ?LOHMAN: Mr.

Chai rman.ju st in followi ng up in what the Me mber for Spring field was di scus sing in terms of encouragement of the formation of conser vation di stric ts, I bel ieve that there has not been enough emph asis on the formation of conservation districts in the last number of years and I'd lik e to see this stepped up and I jus t urge the Min ister in this regard that we would step up the emphasis on the formation of conservation dis tricts. I would also li ke to mention that in terms of the whole fundin g for conservation di stricts, it is a very important item.

I mentioned this in my debate Speech from the Throne, the number of municip alit ies in the constituency that I represent including the arm of Ochr e Ri ver of Dauphin; there's Ste. Rose which is not dir ectly in my constituency, but close by and the L.G.D. of Al onzo. All of these areas are affected by the Turtle Ri ver Conservation Dis tric t and I would like to urge the Min ister to look carefully at that particu lar budget item. Conservation Dis trict Authority, in view of the fact that it is held at the same number of dollars that it was last year. MR. KOV NATS: Mr.

Chairman, I really wasn't going to enter into the debate because at first I thought that this wasn't the pla ce to debate the sub ject. I thought that we were investigating the Min ister's department and some of the items in the Min ister's department, but I'd lik e to enter into the debate now that I find out that it is a debate. The fi rst thing that I would like to know is concerning, I heard the terminology the Cor- dite Di version and that's a new term to me, probably been in existence for some time, but what is the Cor di te Div ersi on?

Is it because it's named after the former Cordite Plant at Transcona? 415 MR. MACKLING: It's my understanding that there's an area ju st east of Winnip eg that during the War was the site of the old Cordite Plant and the lands in that area, a lot of them have adopted some of the nomen clature of that plant so there is a Cordite Ditch appar ently, or drain. MR.

KOVNATS: It causes me to reflect a li ttle bit on my younger days when I knew that the Cordite Plant was out in the Transcona area and when the Cordite Plant was removed there was a big bundle of wood and junk around, and we as kids went over to the Cord ite pl ant and we used to pick up mercur y, li quid mercur y, ju st lying on the ground, which was proba bly something to do with the manufactu ring of the cordite in that area.

Has the Honourable Min ister checked to see whether, in fact, if this Cordite Div er sion does come into effect, the mercur y that I know was there many many years ago, could cause any contamination and cause the Min ister of Environment some problems and infect the whole of the Spri ngfield area? MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, if such is the case, that's an environmental matter that would have to be dealt with under the Estimates of the Min ister of the Environment, and I prefer that he not deal with that during the course of our Estimates. MR.

KOVNATS: It appears that it could be an envir onmental problem , but I know how interested the Min ister of Envir onment has been in the past and I know how interested he will be in the futur e, and I don't believe that anybody has ever brought it to anybody's attention and it only came about this even ing because when I heard the term Cordite Di version and I absolutely know that there was mercury there and I' ve never known mercury to not cause any prob lems.

But I was ju st wondering, whether in fact, before this di version proceeds whether we could have the satisfaction of knowing that the whole area has been checked for mercur y and whether it would cause it to poll ute the area. MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I understand there has been a drain in that area for many, many years. I don't know whether it has been tested for mer cury other than the sampling by the honourable member, and I'm sure that now that it's been brought to the attention of my department and the Min ister for Envi ronment, those particulars that you refer to can be verified one way or another.

I would be happ y if you gave us some details of them, your findin gs ear li er on. Free mercury on the ground, when was that? MR. KOVNATS: It was right after 19 45, if I recall cor rectly, and we used to take the mercury - and I don't know whether I can get myself into trouble - but we used to rub pennies with the mercury and try to make them look like di mes. Never were we able to pass off pennies with mercur y on them to look lik e dime s.

Monday, 15 March, 19 82 because even though they were very shiny from the rubbing of the mercury, by fingering the thumb onto the coin, in short time they became very dull and you could see that they weren't really di mes they were pennies. MR. CHAIRMAN: We are going to go to 4. (f)

(3) Gr ants to the Conservation Distric ts-pass. 4.(g)

(1) Salaries. Memb er for Emerson. MR. ALBERT DRIEDGER (Emerson): Thank you Mr . Chairman. I have a series of questions here regarding the Canada-Manitoba Flood Damage Reduction Program. I wonder whether the Min ister could indicate, pre viously there was a program which was cost-shared by the province and the Federal Government in terms of buildin g up the di kes and certain flood reduction programs, has there been any change in the policy as far as the cost-sharing is concerned of these programs? MR. MA CKLING: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, I am given to understand that there has been a decision made that the mu nicip alities affected would be assessed 10 per cent of the cost of the work. MR. DRIEDGER: That is a very dramatic change of policy when you consider the cost of some of these pr ograms, I think. understandably till now the prov ince was pick ing up these costs. I wonder whether the Min ister and his departmental people have been in consultation with the municip alitie s involved along the Red Ri ver Val ley prior to indi cating to them that there is a 10 percent charge to them? MR. MA CKLING: Mr.

Chairm an, I am not sure as to what di scussion took pla ce but I understand that in other jur isdictions the cost of the municip alitie s is much much greater. In the Mar iti mes, for example , it is one-third. MR. DRIEDGER: Mr . Chairman, I am not really that interested what they do out there. I am concerned about what has been policy with major drai nage or flooding problems along the Red Ri ver Valley in the past and the amount of money that it has cost the people individually, dir ectly, as well as municip alitie s in terms of certain of these programs.

And here, all of a sudden, these communities along the Red Ri ver Valley get informed that the up dating of the diking program that has taken pla ce was cost-shared by the Provincial Government, as well as the Federal Government; that this program is not adequate now; that an additional program has to be put in place and the munici pal ities and the communities are going to be bi ll ed an extra 10 percent to bring it up to a certain standard. Now, in conjunction to that, I would like to ask the Min ister, what does it mean the minimum requir ed level of protection is the 1 percent flood? MR.

MACK LING: My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that the Federal Government, in negotiation with Provincial Government on these flood damage reduc tion agreements, would not accept a 55/45 split and 416 insisted that the municip alities bear some of this cost and suggested 10 percent. Si nce this is federally funded we have to negotiate with the Federal Government on these things. MR. CHAIRMAN: You had a specific qu estion, Member for Emerson? MR. DRIEDGER: I have a few more, Mr. Chairman, if you please.

Si nce when would the Federal Govern ment be indicating to the Provincial Government how they should charge costs against municip alities.

I would assume that the Provincial Government would be the one that should make that kind of a decision and, if the Min ister would take care to peruse some of the letters that have been sent to some of their vil lages along the Red Riv er Valley and the costs that are going to be mandatorially applied to them without the municipal ities knowing what is going on, I wonder if the Min ister could take time to maybe meet with the municip aliti es, explain what is going on because many of the councillo rs are very up set. They do not know what is going on and they want to know the reason for this. MR. MACKLING: Mr .

Chairman, both I and my staff will be happ y to meet with municipali ties affected and, ju st to elab orate further in the negotiations between the Federal and Provinc ial government, I'm given to understand that we wanted the Federal Government to fund 50 percent and we'd fund 50 percent, but the Federal Government was adamant in its position it would only go 45 and suggested that, in accordance with cost-shari ng arrangements in other ju risd ictions, the municip alit ies pick up some of the cost since a good deal of the benefit is derived by the munic ip ality itself and, thus the formula that has been arrived at at 45, 45 and 10 .

MR. DRIEDGER: Another problem I have with this whole program, Mr. Min ister, is the fact that the Flood Red uction Program has been in place, most of the di kes have been up dated within the last period of time, the last year. The one dike that possibly has not been up dated is the one at Emerson and here accord ing to the correspondence that has been sent out to these communities, it indicates according to the 1- percent flood level requir ed that there will have to be additional work being done now and the costs have been estimated already and it's substantial to some of these communities.

I would like to know why there has to be an up dating of the di kes after it ju st has been done by the previous administration or has been done last year? MR. MA CKLING: Mr . Chairman, my advice is they were not upda ted ju st recently and they requi re up grading now. The information the Memb er for Emerson had was incorrect. MR. MANNESS: Yes, I' d like to continue along in the same vein if I could for a whi le. I don't know if the Min ister has in front of him a copy of the letters that did go out to many of the munici palities and the towns in the area, but it's under the sig nature of Mr .

Weber and the one I'm qu oting from has been dir ected to Mr.

Jack Mu rray, the Mayor of the Town of Morris. I don't know if they're all the same or not, but I think they all refer to the breakdown of the agreement as to between the various authorities. My first question though, particu larly the one relat ing to Morris: reference is made in the letter and I'm quoting, "The reason for the up grading is that the existing dik es do not provide the standard of protec tion requir ed under the Flood Damage Protection Program. The minimum requir ed level of protection is the 1- percent flood." Could somebody define what is meant in that last statement, the 1- percent flood? MR.

MACKUNG: Mr. Chairman, it's a flood that occurs once in 10 0 years or 1 percent. MR. MANNE SS: Can we measure that then in terms of a 19 50 or a 19 79 flood? I think that means a lot more to me. MR. MACKLING: I'm gi ven to unde rsta nd, Mr . Chairman, that the 19 50 flood would be a 50-year flood or a 2-percent flood, so the requir ements for the 1 percent would be even higher than that, if you can follow that. Do you understand? MR. MAN NESS: I am having some trouble following that because I don't know where the 19 79 flood fal ls into this because that was a major flood in case we forget. MR.

MACKLING: I'm given to understand the '79 flood at Emerson would have been a 1 in 95, so you'r e getting close to 1 percent again. MR. MAN NESS : Ok ay, I' m going to try and recap this or sum marize this. What we're saying then is if another flood comes equiv alent to the 19 79 flood, that would be the 1 in 10 0 you're talking about? MR. MACKLIN G: Yes, yes, just about. MR. MANNESS: And, therefore, the dike at Morris would be able to withstand that? MR. MACKLING: If it's upgr aded. MR. MANNESS: What happened to the same dike that withstood the 19 79 flood? MR. MACKLI NG: Mr.

Chairman, I'm advised that the flood at Eme rson at the border was a 1 in 95, at Morris it wasn't qu ite as high as that in '79 -(l nterjection) Mr. Chairman, let me indicate again that the standard that is suggested is a 1 percent. In other words, that it be up graded from what it is now. MR. MAN NESS: Yes, I' ve been part of this too. We've made some ligh t of this, but it's a tremendous of that particular town. They don't know whether they have flood protection or not to wit hstand a 1 in 10 0 year flood. Do they have that? MR. MA CKLING: Mr . Chai rman, no.

And that is why the upgr ading is being recommended. MR. MANNESS: Well, at least, we understand that. MR. MACKLING: You understand it now. MR. MANNESS: Yes. The proposal to change the var ious funding breakdowns, were the municip alities or the towns, were they incl uded in that decision at all? MR. MAC KLING: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is no. MR. MANNESS: Their 10 -percent share then was an arbitrary decision made without their knowledge. MR. MACK LING: Yes, it was made after negotiations between the two levels of government. MR.

MAN NESS: The maintenance and operation also, I think, on these letters; again I' ve only seen the one di rected to the Town of Morris and again if I could qu ote a paragraph and I can lay this into the record if somebody wishes. "The Provincial Government has also requested municip al sharing in the annual maintenance and operation of these works at 25 percent with the prov ince assumin g the remaining 75 percent." Has this been the traditional breakdown in main taining these di kes? 417 MR. MAC KLING: Mr . Chairman, I understand that is Treasury Board decision. MR.

MANNE SS: My question hasn't qui te been ans wered. Is that the way the cost breakout has been maintained as far as the maintenance and operation of th ese par ticular dik es, tha t spl it ting of responsibi li ty? MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chair man, I understand in the past the pro vi nce assumed 10 0 percent of the cost and this is a departure from that as wel l. MR. MANNESS: Again, then the question, were the municipal ities and towns, were they includ ed in that decision? MR. MACKLIN G: No, I understand they weren't.

I might say that in connection with all of these negotia tions apparently with the Federal Government, they were started during the course of the previous admin istration as wel l. MR. MAN NE SS: The final question I have at this time on this particular issue is because these letters went out to a great number of authorities, the total of which I do not know. Can you tell me what the total request would be for the towns and the muni cip alities as far as their share; the total imp act on this new di vision of responsibil ities would be to the whole area? MR.

MACKLI NG: In ju st a moment maybe we can quantify that precisely, Mr. Chairman. I'll see if Mr. Weber has his notes here. My understanding, Mr . Chairman, is that the entire cost of this up grading is $4 mil lion, and 10 percent of that would be $400,000 involving eight communities and that costing is spr ead

Monday, 15 March, 19 82 over three years. MR. MANNESS: Two other questions, and again don't know if I'm rushing into one of the projects that may be dis cussed later in detail under

Section 13 , but was Brunkild one of these communities? MR. MA CKLING: I'm gi ven to understand that's the case. MR. MANNESS: Then to sum up, the total new responsi bil ity that will come to the citizens locally in southern Manitoba will be half a milli on doll ars, of which they did not have an understanding or say in, as far as assu ming that part of the debt; is that correct? MR. MA CKLING: Yes, I'm given to understand, although the honourable member says half a mil lion; $1 00,0 00 means a lot to government; it was $400,000.00. MR. MANNE SS: I retract that, $400,000.00. Thank you. MR.

MACK LING: Yes, eight communities over three years. MR. CHAIRMAN: Member for Pembina. MR. ORCHARD: Mr . Chairman, getting back to our 1 percent flood. How much freeboard does raising a dik e around the Town of Morris to the 1 percent level; how much freeboard is requir ed? MR. MA CKLING: Can I get that question again, I'm sorry. MR. ORCHARD: If you are going to raise the di kes around Morris, to give them protection in a 1 percent flood, how much freeboard is there? MR. MAC KLING: Mr . Minis ter, I'm gi ven to under stand that it depends on the location of the dike.

Dykes on the western and northwestern portion of Morris, because of wave action from the prevai lin g winds, have to be a li ttle higher, so you're looking at four feet there, and probably in the other areas a couple of feet. MR. ORCHARD: There was some upgr ading done to the dike s in a number of communities between Win nip eg and the U S. border in 19 79 and 19 80. What levels of flood protection were provided in that up grading during the flood, in anticip ation of the flood, and after the flood? MR. MACK LING: Mr .

Min ister, I'm given to under stand that dur ing the course of the '79 flood effect, there was fill put on top of the dike s, and that's involved in grading that down and then building it up, in up grading the dik es. MR. ORCHARD: Then you can't give me an answer as to what levels or what flood protection was pro vided by that up grading? Was it protection against a 2 percent flood, 1. 5 percent flood? 418 MR.

MACK LING: I'm gi ven to understand that dur ing the course of the '79 flooding it was an endeavour to get up to the level of a 95-year flood, because that was the predi cted flood, that being the level, I guess, at Emerson. MR. ORCHARD: Ok ay, so then it was very close in 19 79 to a 1 percent flood and, I assume, will not requir e that much more expenditur e to get it to the 1 percent level? MR. MA CKLING: I'm given to understand, Mr . Chairman, that the Morris dikin g doesn't involve a great deal of height. MR.

ORCHARD: Well, you're talking a figur e, I belie ve, of $66,000 to accompli sh that up grading over the next three years. MR. MACKLING: Maybe if the honourable member would give me a copy of the letter he's referri ng to I could ... MR. ORCHARD: That's no letter I'm referri ng to, I haven't read it yet. MR. MAC KLING: Oh, okay. Mr. Chairman, rather than hold up the questioning, maybe staff could take that as notice and if they can get that information before we complete the questions I'll deal with it. MR.

ORCHARD: In the extensive, Raising and Mov ing Program that was undertaken after the 19 79 flood and, I bel ieve, was ju st comp leted last summer in '8 1, what was the levels establ ished in any of the farm steads and busine sses protected by the Raising and Moving Program; was it the 1 percent flood with freeboard? MR. MAC KLING: Sorry, can you repeat the last part of the question? MR. ORCHARD: Was it the 1 percent flood plus free board? MR. MAC KLING: When? MR.

ORCHARD: That was the Raising and Moving Program that was comple ted over the summer of '79, '80, and '81 for various farms and busine sses outside of the major communities; the Raising and Moving Program, what was the flood protection afforded there? MR. MACK LING: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised there was no up grading at '79, all that happ ened was a trim ming of what had been placed there. MR. ORCHARD: No, no.

Outside of the communities of Letell ier, Emerson and Morris we undertook, after the '79 flood, a Raising and Moving Program which involved pr ivate farmsteads, pri vate businesses out side of the protected towns. I ju st want to know if that program gave them protection at the 1 percent flood occurance, plus freeboard?

Monday, 15 March, 19 82 MR. MACK LING: The work carried out was intended to bring it up to the 1 percent level, but apparentl y has not. MR. ORCHARD: Now, if there are any farms or busi nesses outside of the main communities which are going to bring their flood protection up to the 1 per cent, is there funding availabl e? MR. MACK LING: I'm given to understand that indi viduals were given a level to buil d to and some of the individ uals may or may not have built to that level. MR.

ORCHARD: Fine, I know they were given the levels to build to and they also received a compensa tion on the joint federal- provi ncial funding to accomplish that flood protection. Is that option sti ll available to those farmers, busi nessmen outside of the protected towns for next summer, for this sum mer for instance, is that program of funding still availab le? MR. MACKLING : My understanding was that indi viduals were given, through the Depar tment of Government Services, the Flood Board, some assis tance in that but that financing is not available now. MR.

ORCHARD: So those individ uals who did not receive protection under the Flood Board Compensa tion on the Moving and Raising Program no longer have any avenue of cost-sharing available to them from the provincial and the federal level. MR. MACKLING: No, Mr. Chairman, I'm gi ven to understand that they didn't exercise that prerogative; there is none now. MR. ORCHARD: So then what we are talking about here in Item (

g) is, let's say a number of commu nities from Emerson, Letellier, Morris, St. Jean, those com munities along the Red Ri ver are going to be receiving funding under App ropriation (g) (2)? MR. MACKLING: Yes. I'm given to understand, Mr. Chairman, that the valley town di kes that are involved are: St. Jean at a cost of $934,000; Emerson $519,000; St. Adolphe $380,000; Letellie r $2 81,0 00; Bru nkil d $569,000; Morris $671,0 00; Rosenort $368,000; and Dominion City $1 85,000; a total of $3,907,000 and that item is provided in capital. MR.

ORCHARD: Okay, that item is provided in capi tal, over three years I take it? MR. MACKLING: $1 .9 of that $3.9 mill ion is in this year's capital - pardon me $900,000.00. MR. ORCHARD: I assume then, Mr. Chairman, that there is the proviso under the new fundin g arrange ment establ ished by this Min ister, that $1.9 milli on will be expended provided the communities involved come up with $1 90,000.00? MR. MACKLING : That would be $90,000 this year on the part of the communities. MR. ORCHARD: $90,000.00? So that means you're spending $900,000.00? MR. MAC KLING : Yes, $90,000.00. MR.

ORCHARD: So then that means, Mr. Chairman, that the capital appropriation is not $1 ,900,000, but only $900,000 for this year? MR. MACKLING: $900,000 appropriation for this year. MR. ORCHARD: I must have misheard you because I thought you said $1.9 milli on for this. MR. MACK LING : I did initially and I corrected myself to $900,000.00. MR. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr . Chairman, I'm sorry I'm rush ing you. Then in order for those communities, whichever ones are identified to undertake provi ncial expenditur e of some $900,000, they must somehow come up with $90,000 contribution? MR.

MACKLING : We're ju st verifying our figur es. Would you give me that question again? 419 MR. ORCHARD: For this particular capital expendi ture of $900,000 to be undertaken by those communi ties in the Red Ri ver Valley that you ide ntified earlier, in order for that $900,000 to be expended this sum mer, those communities favoured with the funding are going to have to raise $90,000 from their local taxpayers. MR. MACKLING : I as sume such to be the case. MR. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, I find this to be a very interesting development particu larly when such an arrangement was made between the Federal Government and the Provincial Government and according to this letter from Mr. Weber communi cated to the municipal ities on March 4, without con sultation with them I submi t, Mr . Min ister, that they are going to find themselves indeed hardpressed this year to accumu late that $90,000 in the communi ties so favoured, as I said before, with the $900,000 expected funding.

Would you not think that di version from the established practice of no muni cipal contri bution to flood protection in those communities would have been best initiated only after some exten sive consultation with the municipal ities? MR. MACKLING : Wel l, Mr. Chairman, I won't be def ensive about that at all. If I had been the Min ister probably at the time and the matter had been di s cussed with me, yes, I think that I would have lik ed to have informed the municipali ties but I don't think any munic ipal ity wants to pay this money. It's a question of getting the work done.

The Federal Gove rnment takes the position that this is emi nently reasonable because for the protec tion involved to the communities it's relatively high from a point of view cost-benefit. After all the general taxpayers of Canada and the province are picking up 90 percent of the cost to protect these communi ties and I don't think it's an unreasonable ratio. Now in respect to the im pact on mill rates or taxa-

Monday, 15 March, 19 82 tion, that's something that certainly could be consi dered. It may be that we can be persuaded and we could work out a term of longer phasing of that expense involved on the part of the munici palities or the towns. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Lakeside. MR. ENNS : Mr. Chairman, I want to have the record clearly indicate that certainly the question of munici pal participation in the up grading of the valley diking sys tems was made kn own to the pr ev ious administration.

I can also recall indi cating to staff at that time, that's a position that the Federal Government is put ting forward, let's try it on if you li ke. I think I probably tried to use those very terms. However, there has always been a special and uni que situation with respect to Red Ri ver Valle y flood ing for some very understandable reasons, the first one simply because of the massive scale of that flood ing.

The fact that International waters are concerned, the dikin g activity in the State of North Dakota and to a lesser extent Min nesota, continue to aggravate the flooding problems for us in the Red Ri ver Valley here on the Canadian side of the border and for these reasons, historically and traditionally since the mid Sixtie s when major flood protection works were undertaken, the decision has been made that the senior governments, both Federal and Provincial share 10 0 percent of the cost.

The citizens of Winnip eg did not partici pate in the $65-mill ion floodway that has granted such marvel lous protection to half the popu lation of Manitoba. The same is true for the diking in pla ce in the valle y towns throughout the Red Ri ver Valley. I make that point because the record should be clear. On the other hand there have been, as there ought to be, negotiations take place with municip alities where for one reason or other they did not fit the rule s, the regulations, or the cost-benefits stud ies didn 't indicate the kind of support that they should get.

One that im mediately comes to mind is the Commu nity of Gimli; Carman is another one; Ste. Rose is another one. But I would like to put on the record, the action taken by the department and the Min ister at that time in coming to grips with the situa tion in Gimli, where the government of the day wasn't prepared to enter into a flood-pr otection undertaking without some municipal particip ation. Extensive discussions took pl ace with the Reeve and Council of the R.M. of Gimli. Indeed, I think, Mr .

Mini ster and the department has a resolution on file that was unanimously passed by the Gimli Council, agreeing to a partici pation in these flood protection works. To me, Mr. Chairman, that is an app ropria te procedure which the Honourable Memb er for Pembina allud ed to in consultation with municip alities effected before arbritrarily suggesting to them that they have a payment to pick up. I submi t to you, Mr.

Chai rman, and I certainly felt at the time that I was first made aware of the Federal Government's insistence or decision to make a change in the funding proced ure, that it was going to be di fficult to bring about, for a very sim pl e, understand able reason that once a pattern of assistance has been established it is pretty hard to break that pattern. 420 I won't necessarily argue the merits of the proposed change, one side or the other, but I suggest to all members that it is as di fficult for the Min ister of Natu ral Resources to change the funding arrangements that have been practised in the Red Ri ver Valley for the last ten or twelve years or two decades, as it would be for the Min ister of Educ ation to cut out transporta tion grants to school di visions or to alter in some other substantive way the kind of grants that have been provided to the educational system over the number of years.

I di dn't have an opportunity of raising the issue to this extent with the departmental people when it was my responsibil ity, but I was certainly aware that we would run into this kind of a situation. I am somewhat surp rised that the decision to proceed along this basis was made obviously with very li ttle consultation, because, Mr. Chairman, even at 10 percent, I submit that the 10 -percent impost on a community like Mor ris or Emerson is as sub stantive as the 45 percent is to the province. That being the case, then, Mr.

Chair man, they might well of at least been given an oppor tunity to express their ideas as to the necessity of the expenditu re, how it should be spent, whether or not, to use the words of my honourable friend from Dau phin as to whether or not the Cadilla c treatment is always necessary, or whether the same level of pr o tection, the 1- percent level of protection could be achieved in a matter that was somewhat less costly to them.

In other words if a community is being asked to contribute $70,000-$80,000 to a flood protection works, then I think they do have a right to sit in Coun cil with the engineers, with the depar tment in the planning of that additional flood protection. Mr. Chair man, yes, certainl y, it should be clearly noted that the changes that are now being adopted as polic y were made evid ent to me as Min ister and to the previous admi nistration; it should also be made very clear on the recorsd that the administration at that time, had made no decision on the matter.

It is obvious to me that this administration has made a deci sion. I suggest that it will be made with some resistance in the communities involved. MR. MAC KLING: Wel l, Mr . Chairman, you know it is a dif ficult area for government when you rely on arran gements with another government, but as the Hon ourable Memb er for Lakes ide has indicated, it is not easy when you are dealing with the Federal Govern ment. My understanding is that we really did n't have that many options.

We could have taken the position that it is 50-50 or we won't go ahead with it Wel l, then we wouldn't get an agreement with the Federal Government. The Federal Government cut back its share to 45 percent I am sure that if we had said to the local governments and if we said that now it looks like you're going to pick up 10 percent, the reaction would be as perceived. Who wants to spend money today? Who wants to be caught with additional expense?

The taxpayers in Manitoba are certainly not enthu siastic about it The taxpayers of anywhere wouldn't be enthusiastic about it I supp ose it is open to the taxpayers of the towns now to say, "That's too much money and we can't afford it." Wel l, the alternative is no diki ng, perhaps and that wouldn't be a desirable

Monday, 15 March, 19 82 thing. I think that what is desirable is that I am pre pared in my department to sit down with the munici pal officials involved and review the situation. If they don't want diking, if we can't work out that arrange ment, that would be something that I would hesitate to contempla te. However, if it is a question of funding over a period of time, we are prepared to look at that. That I can undertake.

In respect to the honourable member's suggestion that the City of Winnip eg got all the benefits and did n't have to put anything out, I'm advised that the City of Winnip eg paid tor its own di kes and buil t its own di kes and maintained them. The taxpayers of Winnip eg were saddl ed with those costs and including pumping stations to deal with flood. It's not li ke the citizens of these communities are bei ng cailed up on to provide expense where no other commu nity has. MR. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, I supp ose perhaps, even though the item looms large enough in the case of the communities involved but it is an indicator to us that when the Federal Government pulls back, the charge will be passed on di rectly to the citizens of Manitoba as it is in this case. The option certainly was there for the province to pick up the extra 5 percent and not charge the municip alities that charge.

It has more serious connotations, I supp ose, if the same polic y is adopted by this government, if serious redu ctions as being forecast, take pla ce in the field of health, field of secondary education where the Fed eral Gove rnment is talking in terms of hundreds of bill ions of dolla rs. It will be interesting to observe how this government passes through those increased costs as they are apparently prepared, without too much consultation, to pass those charges on to the communities of Morris, Letellie r, St. Jean, Emerson, and St. Adolp he. MR. MACKLI NG: Well, Mr .

Chairman, I am not here to speculate on what the Federal Government is going to do or how we are going to react to that. I know that we have reacted to the Federal Government in this instance. I have indicated that I'm prepared to sit down with the municip al officials involved and see whether or not they want a longer period in which to finance this, or whether they want the diking at all. I think that's fair. MR. ANS TETT: Mr.

Chairman, on the question of the valley towns and the dikin g around those towns, I app reciate the argument that is being advanced by several members of the Op position with regard to the muni cip al ities being put in the position of picking up 1 O percent of the cost of the capital construction because of the Federal Government pul lb ack.

I have to take from the argume nt advanced by the Member for la keside though some solace in the fact that in the past he suggested Gimli and there were also several other towns involved - the proposition was put by the pro vince then that when the cost benefit ratio was such that it indic ated greater local input was requir ed, I think that was the term expressed by the Me mber tor Lakeside, that the money was pro vided in the Estimates of the Province on the condi tion that the local muni ci pal ity picke d up its portion of the cost. 421 I don't think anything more is bei ng requir ed here in terms of the cost-benefit ratio to the valley towns.

The cost-benefit ratio in Carman, Gimli or Ste. Rose is certainly not as good, nowhere near as good as it is in the Red Ri ver Valley towns, but t he proportion requir ed from the municipali ties in Gimli, Carman and Ste. Rose du Lac was substantially higher than 10 percent under the proposals in which they were involved at that time. They were talking larger percentages than 10 percent, Mr . Chairman. So I have some concern here.

When the Memb er for Lakeside suggests that all of the costs of federal pull backs and programs - and he knows as well as other members of the Committee and as wel l as the Minister knows that these cutbacks involve a lot of cost-shared programs as well as equal ization grants - he's suggesting that the people of Manitoba are going to have to pick up the tab and I don't think anybody's going to argue with him. What he is suggesting here now is that all these costs are going to be passed on to municipal ities, or whatever. Mr .

Chairman, the reality of the situation is that a lot of these costs are going to have to be picke d up by the Provincia l Government and anyone who tries to sug gest otherwise is fooling themselves. Mr . Chairman, the Honourable Member for Lake side can't have it both ways. He can't decry this government for ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. MR. ANST ETT: I'm glad, Mr . Chairman, that the Honourable Memb er for lakeside suggests that he wants to have it both ways which poi nts out the fallacy of his argument when he decides that he wants to have it both ways.

If he's going to argue that the costs of this program and many others are going to have to be pic ked up by the province - or should be pic ked up by the prov ince -a nd at the same time decry the present admin istration for exorbitant spending increases which he did dur ing the Throne Speech Debate then I'm sorry, Mr. Ch airman, we have to call him to task for trying to have it both ways. I think that applies to this cost that has to be passed on to the people of Manitoba since the Federal Government won't continue to supply funding at the same level they did in the past and it appl ies to many other programs.

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions for the Min ister with regard to this program though and the fir st one would be, when was the program for indi vid ual farmstead grants di scontinued? At what point was the program for up grading onto pads at certain levels which was funded after the 1979 flood di scontinued. I heard it stated that that program was no longer avail able. At what time did that end? MR. MACKLING: I'm advised March 31 , 19 81. MR. AN STETT: Mr .

Chairman, ju st for clarific ation then, that program was not discontinued by the pres ent admin istr ation but rather by the pr evious administration? MR. MACK LING: Well on March 31 , 19 81 , I would assume it was the former administration.

Monday, 15 March, 19 82 MR. ANSTETT: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Morris. MR. MANNESS: Yes, I'd like to ask a couple ques tions again along the same line that the Memb er for Sprin gfield did. That announcement was made March 31, 19 81. Did it run out its natural li fe? Can anybody tell me that? MR. MACK LING: There was an ongoing program of $8 mil li on and when the monies ran out the province apparently went to the Federal Government and asked for a continuation of the program and the Fed eral Government said no, so then the program died. MR.

MANNESS: How many appl ications were left wanting at that time? MR. MACKLI NG: Mr . Chairman, the suggestion was made in half banter but probably correct. The former Min ister of Government Services would have that information. It was under Government Services under the Flood Funding Program and we don't have that information. I would imagine that there would be some. MR. MANNESS: When was the decision made and by whom, to pull back the provi ncial funding from 50 to 45 percent and why was that decision made? I bel ieve it was a 50-50 cost-share. MR.

MA CKLING: I bel ieve I'd ind icated earlier that it was made by Treasury Board and that was February of this year. MR. MANNESS: Was there some reason that the Treasury Board felt obli ged to cut back their share because the Federal Government did also? MR. MACKLING: A recommendation was made to Treasury Board by the negotiating group in the department that that arrangement go forwa rd, 45-45- 10 . MR. MANNESS: In other words Treasury Board could have seen fit to maintain that share at 50 percent and pass on only a 5 percent al location to the municipali ties. MR.

MACK LING: Oh yes, that was open to Treasury Board, sure. MR. MANNESS: Am I right in concluding that what the Min ister is saying is that these local authorities, really they can make the decision as to whether they want to increase the level of the dike or not? MR. MACK LING: Yes. MR. MANNESS: That if they decide they don't want to make that commitment of funds, that they then can remain at the mercy of that one in a 100-year flood? MR. MACK LING: I would assume so, Mr. Chairman. 422 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Dau phin. MR. PLOHM AN: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, am I to under stand that only the communities in the Red Ri ver Valley are incl uded in the Canada-Manitoba Flood Damage Reduction Agreement? ... Communities in the Red Ri ver Valley area are the only ... MR. DEP UTY MINIS TER, Nick Carter: Yes, commun ities are incl uded under the li st of communities under the Flood Damage Agreement, yes. MR. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, would that mean then that no other areas of the pr ovince are sub ject to cost sharing Federal-Pr ovincial Fl ood Damage Reduction Agreements at this present time? MR.

MACK LING: There are other communities in the province that are under the Flood Damage Reduction. There are a number of other communities in Manitoba that are sub ject to these arrangements with the prov ince and the Federal Government. If you lik e, I'll give you a li st of those. MR. PLOHMAN: Wel l, I ju st want to explore this further. Is it correct that the municip alities around the Riding Mountain National Park have not been inclu ded in any Federal-Pro vincial Agr eement, are not includ ed? MR. MA CKLING: It is my understanding, Mr. Chair man, that the agreements cover 45 Manitoba com munities.

To date five communities have been desig nated; these are the towns of Mel ita and Wawanesa on December 20, 19 79; the City of Winnip eg on February 15 , 19 80; the Town of Souris on October 1, 19 80; and the Community of Elie on November 5, 19 80. MR. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chair man, what I'm asking is whether the munici palitie s, and I' ve obviously got my answer, that no municip alities around the Riding Mountain National Park, which dump s a great deal of water- and it's federal jur isdiction - on the municip ali ties that sur round it is not under any federal-provincial flood reduction agreement at this time? MR.

MA CKLING: My understanding is that Dauphin is includ ed. MR. PLOHMAN: Wel l, I don't understand that it's under ... MR. MACK LING: And the Town of Ste. Rose. MR. PLOHMAN: At the present time, Mr. Chairman, because I understand that the basis for this is on a cost-benefit analysis, cost-added basis, and I'm wondering whether these were includ ed under that basis in this agreement. MR. CHAIRMAN: I' d remind members that we're hav ing problems with the taping back there; you have to wait until you're acknowledged by the Chair . Mr . Mini ster. MR. MACK LING: My understanding, Mr . Chai rman,

Monday, 15 March, 19 82 is that the desig nated community is subject to a cost benefit analysis on the Flood Prevention Project. If the cost-benefit analysis indicates a benefit of one or greater. then the Federal Government will partici pate; if it's under one it will not. MR. PLOHM AN: Mr. Chairman.

I ju st wanted to add. on that basis, that certainly the communities in the Red Ri ver Vall ey are receiving a great deal of benefit under this; they are getting 90 percent of the pay ments of the cost of flood protection for their com munities and many communities in my area that are sub ject to flooding very freq uently are never able to get this kind of fundin g at all .

While I can sympathize with the Memb er for Pembina. in terms of di scussi ng this and saying that the communities in the area should have been told or consulted in some way before this agreement was signed, I don't think that it's a major problem in that they are having 90 percent of their flood protection paid for by the senior levels of government. I think that while the Member for Pem bina decries this I think there are a lot of areas that don't receive any of these benefits and I think we should look at it from that point of view as well. MR. MACKLING: Mr . Chairman.

I can appr eciate what the honourable member is sayi ng; that there may be communities who would jump at the chance to share in a flood-reduction agreement and would welcome that oppor tunity if it were even greater than 10 percent. but do not qual ify because of the cost benefit analysis, or an Esti mate hasn't been made yet, I don't know. There may be some communities that fall in that category. Certainly I can apprecia te that there may be communities who would welcome that sort of an arrangement. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Emerson. MR. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to expr ess deep concern as to how this whole matter has been handled. The letters that went out to the muni ci pal ities were dated Mar ch 4th; the councils have to have their bud gets comple ted this month, many of them will probably have one meeting in which to con sul t on this matter and, without any consultation at all, they've been hampered with this kind of a program; the changing of the formula. which is something that I think would take lots of consultation on behalf of government and municip al people.

I have to decry the action that has been taken for a government that has been maintaining open government, consult ation; we see the exact reverse of this in this case. as well as in qu ite a few others. The question that I have further. Mr. Chairman, is what happene d to the Flood Reduction Program out sid e of the dikin g areas. where people have spent monies, cost-shared federally, provi ncially, to pro vide protection. In their mi nds the kind of protection that the engineers and governments decreed was necessary? Now we find out that the rule s have changed, it is not adequate.

We will be building bigger di kes around the communities and we will be landing the residential and farm people in the rural areas are hung to dry after having spent considerable monies. I ju st find this hard to compr ehend, exactly how this whole things been handled and I feel very very di s turbed. I know the municip al people are going to be extremely up set and so will the people along the Red Ri ver Valley when they find out what has happened here. There's been a real cross-up here somewhere along the line and it's been handled very very poorly. MR. MACK LING: Mr . Chairman.

I' m given to under stand that afterthe '79 fl ood elevations were given, as he indicated. to indi vidual property owners and they were encouraged to build to those levels. Dur ing the course of the settlements, in respect to flood damage and flood compensation, monies were paid for indi vid uals out of Government Services. If they chose not to buil d di kes to protect their properties that was their own responsibili ty, and I gather the previous admi nis tration. nor is this administration, going to force peo ple to do things they don't want to do.

Now, to suggest that there is something wrong with that, I don't know. that would be criticizing what the former administration did and I don't think the hon ourable member would want to do that.

Now, to sug gest that there is something wrong with this program, I have indicated. and the member seems to take um brage at this, that we are prepared to sit down with the muni cipalitie s involved, the towns involved, and if they don't want the program. of course. that'll mean that funds would be available to some other commun ities if they wanted to get involved and give prio rity to their construction of diking around their communi ties. If they want a phasi ng of the expenditu res we'll certainly want to lis ten to that and talk to them about that.

But I don't think it's constructive for the honour able member to put on a position of anger that this is a terrible program. When he suggested that somehow there has been a breach of good faith or something on the part of this government and suggest there are qu ite a few other instances of high-handedness or arbitrariness. I'd like to know what the honourable member is referring to? 423 IVIR. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman. I find this hard to belie ve.

The Min ister has indicated to us that he has $900.000 put aside in the Capital Expenditu res for this kind of a program along the Red Ri ver Valle y for this year. and in less than a month the councils will now have to decide whether they will accept their portion of the $90,000 expendit ure. or else. you don't have to have it and the money will be spent elsewhere. Unbe lie vable. that kind of an attitude and approach. It's almost like black mail being put on; either you take it and give us the $900,000.00.

Now the Min ister is indi cating to us. wel l. if the need be we will consult with the municipalitie s and see if they need more time. When? They have their bud gets to pr epare; they have to be committed before the end of the month. It's sort of, we've hammered you one now, wel l maybe we'll talk to you but already the damage has been done and the $900,000, as he has ju st indi cated, if they will not accept it and don't want it, wel l, we'll spend it some where else; we'll spend it in Dauphin or wherever. That's all. Mr . Chair man. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for lnkster. MR.

DON SCOTT (l nkster): Okay. we could go on for

Monday, 15 March, 1982 qui te some time, Mr . Chairman, on floods and flood damage, flood-damage protection and what-all under this appr opriation and I' d ju st like to, I guess, review a li ttle bit of what's happened in the past and really ju st what kind of results are we getting. How much plan ning has there been really in the past on flood damage mitigation, on flood damage reduction?

You see, dur ing the last flood, right in the middle of the 19 79 flood, we had the City of Winnip eg which was diking to the tune of several mill ion dollars within the City of Win nipeg approving for subur ban developme nt, housing development. a flood plain and it ju st makes abso lu tely no sense to me that we are going ahead, under the guise of protection forever from the Winnip eg Floodway. The Winnip eg Floodway - correct me if I'm wrong - but I think the Winnip eg Floodway is designed to hold a 16 0-year flood.

I guess that would be - what percent is that, a 16 0-year flood? - is that a two-thirds-of-1- percent flood? It is well known that this area has floods of much greater intensity, of 250 and as high as 400 years and there was a 400-year flood, I think two of them, within the last 400 years if I'm my memory serves me correctly - not that I liv ed back then but from some of the history that I' ve read of the Red Riv er Valley.

So we seem to be painting ourselves into the corner as governments, and I'm not trying to be partisan; it's right across the board that we are building flood pro tection to some degree; we are giving people the idea that they are not going to have to worry about floods of greater signif icance and when they do happen, the damages that are going to be incu rred in the Red Ri ver Valley in par ticular are going to be several times as much as what we've had before. Si nce the 19 48 and 19 50 floods, we've had the development of much of the flood area of Fort Gar ry, all of Fort Rich mond.

We've had areas on the east side of the Red; we've had areas north; properties have changed hands, in many instances a number of times, and then we found ourselves in the last '79 flood of going in and offering compensation to people who went down along Turnbull Drive, built in many cases qui te elaborate homes and here we are coming in as a pr ovince to pay compensation to those people, to ring-dike group s of homes, to ring-dike indi vidual homes, to assist people who have moved out of the city to buy a piece of the countryside and then all of a sudd en they find out that they've bought a chunk of Flood Man.

Now, for God's sakes, anyone who has grown up in this area, even someone coming into the area rela tively recently, should certainly know that the Red Ri ver floods from time to time. My concern is that the government, by perpetua ting really poor flood damage studies in the past, not really addressing the situa tion, going to the homeowners themselves and saying to people, "Okay, you've been flooded.

Your proper ty, the deed on it or something alongside the deed, should be stamped that the property is flood property." When a person comes and buys that next time around, he recognizes it as flood property and the province should not be held reli able to giving flood damage compensation to many of these properties. Now, I exclude from this the ring-dike towns.

I exclude from it many of the rural far ms, the people 424 who have been there a number of years and whatnot, but any new properties and I belie ve there is some legis lation on the books already for building stan dards and buildin g codes, that when they build bui ld ings they're supposed to build them at above a certain level. Okay? And if they don't build above those levels, they're not having any compensation. That is their tough biscui ts. I think that we have to take this kind of strong action -(I nterjection)- I' ll grant you, no I fully ap preciate what these . . . MR. KOVNATS: Mr .

Chairman, on a point of privi lege. Everytime you bang that damn thing right close to the micr ophone, it comes through this and it ju st murders my ear, so I would ask you on a point of privi lege to be kind enough to ju st gently bring them to order. Thank you. MR. SCOTT: In continuing then, I would like to see us take even stronger action than has been taken in the past; force the City of Winnip eg to go along; that there will be no provincial cost-sharing in the areas that have flooded in the past to any degrees.

I partici pated for a couple of evenings, and I ju st got sick of it and wal ked away, the dikin g of Scotia Street during the last flood. Now, the people in the homes along Scotia Street, those homes have transferred property titles to most of those homes several times since 19 48 and yet the city, I bel ieve, spent $1.5 milli on buildin g that rudd y di ke. The province paid in to contribute, the Federal Government contribu ted towards the cost of that dike. That dike di sappeared within a month after the flood.

You drive along there now, there's not one sandbag along that whole area and yet if there's another flood coming along, we're supp osed to go and build another dike there to protect those homes. I think it's total foolishness. The dike was built on the west sid e of those homes down Scotia Street. Scotia Street was raised and the properties that are on there, I think, should have designation on them that the city, the province, the Federal Government has no li abi li ty towards moving in and assisting those people in another flood.

So I think the studie s over the years in the past have all said that zoning is one of the best and the cheapest form of flood planning and we still are not using it. We've got to use a heavier hand perhaps with the city in partic ul ar, with some of the other jur isdic tions if need be, and with the indi vidua ls who are buying the land, so that they know when they're buying a piece of proper ty that the province has no liabili ty to protect them and to undo flood damage. MR. MAC KLING: Mr.

Chairman, in respect to the problems associated with people building on flood plain, the province has desig nated flood plain area, but it's left to local government to enforce. Now, if there's any deficiency I won't criticize local govern ment, but there could be perhaps some strengthening of local government's concerns there, I don't know.

In respect to the generality of the concerns here, protection of communities from flood damage, I want to indicate to the honourable members that I'm sur e there'll be many communities who will be anxious to have flood protection on the order contempla ted for these communities and we'll endeavour to provide all

Monday, 15 March, 1982 communities in the same fair and reasonable cost sharing arrangement. If there is any burden, as I have indicated to communi ties in this rather recent announcement, I supp ose that the program needn't be proceeded with if there's no forecast of flood this year; perhaps it can be phased another year. I think that certainly we want to be open to talk to these communities, if there're some problems involved I'll hear what their problems are. But there is a commit ment, I think, on the part of us to at least provide for some standard of cost-sharing that's reasonable.

I might further indicate that I think the way that in modern society, we ought to be addressing the flood ing problem is not building higher dik es, but trying to find the problems for the flooding because everyone in this room now knows, I think, that the 19 50 flood was considered to be a unique flood and yet, in 19 79, in some parts of the Red Ri ver Val ley, the levels were almost as high and so the concern has to be that changes are taking pla ce in the Red Ri ver Basi n.

More water is being rushed off the land more qu ickly and there are problems involved in this for us in Canada and I think a large part of this has occu red in the United States. There have been concerns from time to time about what's happ ening in this Red Ri ver Basin and I think concerns have been evidenced through the Govern ment of Canada to the United States in respect to development south of the border and some changes were made. But it's signifi cant that more and more water is being rushed in a short period of time into this Basin and that creates problems .

This Canada Provi ncial Program is designed lo meet those prob lems as evidenced in the '79 flood. MR. CHAIRMAN: Member for Pembina. MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I will defer to my col legues and later on I will take my opportunity. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Lakeside. MR.

EN NS: Not to detract from the valid ity of the concerns ju st expressed by the Min ister and indeed those that have been expressed earlier by the Memb er for lnkster, but the fact of the matter remains - and the Min ister has available to him staff that can supply him with these figur es that the highest possible flooding ever occurring in the Red Riv er Valle y occurred possibly in the year 18 26 or thereabouts. There were at least two floods in the last century that exceeded the 19 50 and the '79 floods.

Those occurr ed long before man tinkered sub stantially with the Red Riv er Valley, or long before drainage projects were put into place, and long before we collectively decided that instead of 20 to 30 mill ion buf falos roaming the prairies, that wheat fields, barley fields and cattle should use the resource in that way.

I said at the outset, it doesn't mean that su bstantial changes in the way and the manner in which we hus band our land cultur al practices should be seriously undertaken, but there is a danger here that some of my environmentalist friends seem to overlook, that Mother Nature in all her glory has not devastated this Valley to the extent that we have yet to experience. In those years there were no handy scapegoats around lik e farmers who abused the land, or overeager engi neers that dug too many drainage channels, or other reasons that have changed the landscape of the Red Riv er Valley. I think, Mr.

Chairman, in the interest of keeping historical records straight for those who read these words in posterity, those few comments ought to be added to the record. MR. MACKLI NG: Mr . Chairman, I ju st want to put on the record too, that I for one have not accused the farmers of abusing the land or I haven't recognized them as a scapegoat for any criticism. I' ve indicated that we have to be concerned about changing farming practice and more intense use of land.

I haven't laid a heavy hand or poi nted a heavy finger at either my honourable friend from Lakeside, who is a farmer, or any other farmer in Manitoba. 425 MR. ENNS: Wel l, you said you'd cheer me on and now you're backing off. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for lnkster. MR. SCOTT: In reply to the Memb er for Lakeside, -(I nterjection)- no, it's not a point of go getting them, I can assure my collegue here. What we are speak ing of on these floods, those are supp osed to be I belie ve the one in 18 25 or 18 26, they've estimated or I should say guesstimated was a 400-year flood.

We have had si nce 19 48 of the variety between a 70 and 10 0-year flood some five of them I bel ieve. There's 48, 50, 66, 7 41 belie ve was in the 60-80 range, and in 79 again. So what we are doing is, we have aggravated the product of them.

The next 400-year flood, unless we start getting back and restoring some of the capacity of the soil to hold water back, is going to be one heck of a lot worse than the one in 18 26, and the one in 18 26 as the honourable member well knows, the only place that the people and the li ttle tiny settlement which was in the Red Ri ver Settlement had to go to Bi rds Hill and I bel ieve, Stony Mountain, to be able to get away from the flood. Now what my concern and what I was trying to raise on my concern, is that these things are going to happen; we don't have any control over them happ en ing.

The things that control floods are such things as the water levels in the river systems in the prior year, the soil moisture in the soil during the wi nter. the snowfall, the lateness of the spring and if there's any kind of rain and whatnot with a late spring coming because the later the spring is the faster your melt and whatnot is and things are all aggravated and when they're aggravated to various degrees, you have floods of varios degrees.

What I'm afraid of and what I'm worried about more than anything is that we've planned everything around the 100-year flood and there are such things as 200 and 400-year floods and when they come, the devas tation that they're going to bring to this area, largely because of poor plan ning, is going to be ju st almost unfathomably worse than it was in 19 48 and 19 50 with what the Ci ty of Winnip eg and the Red Ri ver Valley witnessed. That's all I'm trying to point out, I'm not taking away from your

Monday, 15 March, 1982 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Lakeside. MR. ENNS : Wel l, Mr . Chairman, I don't pretend to be expert in this matter, but I would suggest that a study into the matter, a research into the matter would sug gest that the works undertaken by the Department of Water Resouces, the Department of Natural Res our ces have probably prec lu ded forever a 400-year flood arising again of the magnitude of 18 26.

I belie ve the historical record will show that an abnormal amount of fall water, summer water, stayed in the valley, would not run off, that in effect provided the base for the then, what we now call the 10 0-year flood, arriv ing on top of that water.

There were no Norquay channels or Grassmere ditches or those things to drain that water off, in the sum mer, in the fall prior to freezeup so that massive base stayed in the Red Ri ver Val ley and then when the waters that can come, as you quit e correctly pointed out, come across us on a 10 0-year basis, then we had the scale of a flood that the Red Riv er Settlers experienced in 18 26 and that kind of situation.

So I would susp ect I do not make an assertion of this fact - but I would susp ect that the computer run-through could probably indicate that the proba bili ty of the type of flood that was experienced in the Red Riv er Valle y may well be a thing of the past, may well be a thing of the past because of the admittedly sketchy records that were available at that time.

But they do indicate that the Valley went into winter that year with all the sloughs, all marshes full, and subse quently with the frost conditions that we had, stayed that way over wi nter, then perhaps with an abnormal snowfall created that 400-year flood. That kind of situa tion is no longer possible because of the man made impr ovements that the Red Ri ver Valle y have seen. By the way, Mr.

Chairman, in this case I share a belie f that the former Member for lnkster used to express from time to time, all things that man do to this Mother Earth need not be bad, they need not be bad ecologically and environmentally. We simp ly have to do certain things from time to time for our convenience and for our sustenance. There are more and more of us people li ving on this globe from time to time and they have to be fed. So I reject the super- environmentalist view that man dare not tinker with nature, only at his peri l.

I happen to think that on many occasions we impr ove on nature; and I happen to bel ieve that the Depar t ment of Natu ral Resou rces, the Depar tment of Water Resou rces very often is a forefront in making some of these improvements. MR. MA CKLING: Mr. Chairman, I won't speculate on the weather. I think the honourable members will appreciate the changes that we've noticed here in this pr ovince in the last few days and in the last decade, and I'm not going to say that we're not going to have this or we're not going to have that. A lot of it depends on the vicissitu des of nature that we can't control.

As to the general concern, yes, what we do in association with nature has to be moderate; it has to be reasona ble, but that shoul dn't stop us from making changes that are to the benefit of man. 426 MR. KOVNATS: Mr .

Chai rman, I see that everyone is entering into the debate and I would lik e to enter into it again inasmuch as there was some discussion con cerning the protective dike along the Scotia Street area, I' d like to go back to 19 48, 19 50 when I was working on the Lyndale Drive dike and also on the dike along the Seine Riv er, and ju st sort of reminisce and advise the honourable members that I am aware of the destructive nature of floods and it frightens me and I can understand the Min ister's position in tryi ng to encourage - I'm not using the word "force" - but encourage these towns along the Red Ri ver Valley to strengthen their di kes because of the destructive nature of floods.

I guess I could carry on for a li ttle big longer, but I really jus t wanted to let it be known that we are not (lere to dis cuss the past to the extent that we have. I think that if we're going to do this there's got to be some agreement. Otherwise, we're going to be here until July or August, and I really don't think that's the nature of it. I think the Mini ster would like his depart ment investigated to the satisfaction of all, and if we can do that and get through with it, we'll all be much happie r.

And I won't reminisce concerning the 19 50 flood where I took a very active part on the Lyndale Drive area and it was first-hand. But there are some benefits that some from a flood. -(I nterjection)- But the benefits that come from a flood, if you look in the Norwood Fla ts area along where the Norwood Community Club is, there's a sports complex and that sports complex is in a dugout that was made when the earth was removed to provide the Lyndale Drive dike which is still there. Lyndale Dr ive is the original dike and it's been reinforced and it's protecting the people in that area. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4(g)(

i) Salaries. The Member from Morris. MR. MANNESS: I'd like to ask a question on the Brunkild dik e. I indic ate by the comment made earl ier that it will be incl uded under

Section 13 under the Capital Projects. MR. MACK LING: Yes. MR. MANN ESS: Does this particular town have an existing dike at all? MR. MAC KLING: I'm advised that it has a partial ring dike, but the pr oposal is to put in a permanent ring-di ke. MR. MANNESS: Of all the towns in the valley, was this the last particular town that was sub ject to major flood damage, was this the last town to be diked with a permanent di ke? MR. MACKLI NG: Yes. MR. MAN NESS: Can the Min ister tell me through his associate, roughly what level of dike is requir ed to give this Town of Brunkild its needed protection? MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you repeat that question, ple ase?

Monday, 15 March, 1982 MR. MANNESS: What height of dike? MR. MAC KLING : Add itional height? MR. MANN ESS: Additional height. MR. MACK LING : We haven't got that at our fingertips here. MR. MAN NESS: I would lik e then to move on back to the di kes at Morris. Can the Min ister give me any ide a first of all, of the height of the dike at Morris and maybe more importantly, what depth of water it res trained in the 19 79 flood? MR. MA CKLING : Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, without asking Mr.

Weber that, I don't think he'd have that information again right at his fingertips what the depth of the water was at the '79 flood and how that compared with the top of the di kes now. MR. MANNESS: What I'm trying to ascertain is the di fference in levels between the water outside the dike and the basic level of ground inside the dike during the peak water height in 19 79. MR. MACKL ING: About 10 to 12 feet. MR. MANNES S: The point I'm tryi ng to make is that the height of water in Morris certainly has to be consi dered in a completely di fferent ligh t than many of the other example s that have been used here.

Fir st of all, we must bear in mind that the majority of that water is not our water. In most cases our water in the valley is long gone before the onslaught of water from the south and some from the far west. I'm wondering when a town is faced with 12 feet of water and know ing that if the dike is breached or if the one flood in 15 0 years comes along and pour s over those dik es, that in fact the town will be totally destroyed.

I'm wondering how they're going to go to that negotiating meeting with respect, Sir, with you, the Min ister, and how they will be able to negotiate at all and that's why I have to ask the last question. Is the cost-sharing still negotia ble at all or is it fixed at 1 O percent? MR. MACKLING : Mr . Chairman, I as sume that all things are possi ble. I think that is a proposal to the munici pal ity based on what was considered fair and equitable. MR.

ORCHARD: I want to start out by responding to some of the fairy tales the Memb er for Spring field has indu lged in tonight and you know, over the past two or three weeks we have come to apprecia te that the Memb er for Spri ngfield has the im pression that he knows more than anybody else about what has gone on in this House in the last four years. He made the comment that the Memb er for Lakeside was in some kind of error in pointing out a change in the funding arrangements for flood protection in the Red Ri ver Valle y. He refers to communities of Gimli and Ste. Rose and Carman, I belie ve.

Well, to refres h the Memb er for Springf ield' s, memory and to make sur e that some of the newco mers in the ND party who may get from time to time 427 mesmerized by his apparent wealth of knowledge, I'd lik e to point out that in Carman's situation - and I will deal with strictly with the Town of Carman - the Red Ri ver Valley has enjoyed flood protection provided by the Federal and Provinci al Govern ment in joi nt funding because the cost-benefit has exceeded one; as a matter of fact I bel ieve, and maybe Mr. Weber can confirm this, it's been a cost-benefit of even up wards of three and four.

Therefore, it has been deemed by the Federal Government to be a project they can par tici pate in because it is cheaper to provide flood pro tection than to continually pay flood damages. Those citizens, traditionally, since I supp ose prior to 19 50, have received flood protection at no cost.

An example of that has been menti oned tonight, the Winnip eg Floodway, which was provided at no cost dir ectly to the citizens of Winnip eg, other than their contribution to provincial taxes which went towards the Provincial Government's share of the Floodway, and that incid entally, the residents of Carman, Miami, Roblin, Rus sell, you name it, Flin Flon, Thomp son, Steinbach, The Pas all contributed to that provi ncial contribu tion, not jus t the people of the City of Winnip eg. Now when the Memb er for Spr i ngfield says that it is no di fferent than what was being proposed for Car man, Gimli and Ste.

Rose, he knows not of what he speaks, because those communities, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, did not have any flood cost-benefit analysis, a unity posi tion. I will refer, specific all y, to Carman, where it was established that a cost-benefit ratio bases the flooding pattern from 19 69 - 19 79, a cost-benefit of .7, less than unity. In other words, the Federal Government position was that it was cheaper to pay flood damages as they occur than to provide flood protection for that commu nity. The similar situation existed for Ste. Rose and for Gimli.

The province, under our term of government, decided that that was not good enough for those communities and we embarked up on a rather unique concept that we put before the Federal Government - and I will deal specifically with Carman's. We said that when the cost benefit ration was . 7 in Carman we are prepared to do this: we asked the Federal Government, would you provide 50 percent of the identifiable cost-benefit, i.e .. 35 of the costs of providing permanen t flood protection; in return the province will provide the other .35 of the .7 cost benefit ratio for flood protection.

We than went to the municip alitie s, in this case Carman; we said to them, we belie ve we can get the .7 shared with the Federal Goverment if you will agree to split the remaining portion of the cost-benefit to bring it to unity, i. e. the .3, the 30 percent of cost. If you split that with us 50150, the pr ovince putti ng in 15 percent, the Town of Carman putti ng in 15 percent, then we belie ve we can proceed with project. That same proposal was made to Ste.

Rose; that same proposal was made to Gimli; and it was under that ci rcu mstance that they were bei ng asked to par tici pate in the Capital costs of permanent flood pro tection. An entirely di fferent situation than was tradi tionally, and by traditionally I mean for 35 years that I know of, the cir cu mstance in which flood protection was permanently provided to the resid ents of the Red Ri ver Valley, including the City of Winnip eg. So, I find a great deal of frustration when the

Monday, 15 March, 1982 Memb er for Springfield attempts to speak knowled geably of something that he doesn't appr eciate the facts of. So, Mr . Chairman, that is why we went to the com munities of Carman, Ste. Rose and Gimli and we negotiated with them. We negotiated with them for approx imately a year on the basis of munic ip al partic ip ation in permanent flood protection; I supp ose. tenderly and compassionately, as the Memb er for Lakeside did because he was part of that negotiation. Now, Mr.

Chairman, we see ac ircu mstancedevelop where the Federal Government has decided that they do not have the funds any more to provide permanent flood protection in the Red Ri ver Val ley where the cost-benefit ratio is 1 plu s. They have said to this Provincial Government that we have today, that we will only provide 45 percent flooding.

What I find reprehensible about this Min ister's posi tion in provi ding flood protection for the Red Ri ver Valle y, is that he has used the excuse that the Federal Government is only providing 45 percent of flood protection costs in the Red Ri ver Val ley to reduce, arbitr arily, the provincial contribution from 50 per cent down to 45 percent. He has chosen to climb on the back of the Federal Government, that doesn't want to provide flood protection in the Red Ri ver Val ley, and reduce the provincial portion that has been traditional of 50 percent down to 45 percent. What is even more reprehensible, Mr.

Chairman, is he has done this without prior consultation to any municipal official in the Province of Manitoba. He has sent out a letter on March 4, 19 82, not the Min ister dir ectly but his departmental staff, saying that this is the new way that we are going to operate. This com ing from a government who has said that they are going to base their government on consultation with interest groups; on di scussion with the di fferent affected peoples of Manitoba; people affected by government programs are going to have full and open access and di scussion with this government.

Wel l, the open, full and accessible dis cussion came to those municip al ities in a letter dated Mar ch 4th in which they received the new terms of condition under which the Red Ri ver Val le y is going to receive flood protection The Min ister of Muni cip al Affairs has to bear his

part in this, because I don't know whether he didn't know that the Natural Resou rces Department was doing this to his munici palitie s; if he did, then his actions are inexcusable in letting it go by. But, for the time bei ng, we will wait and we'll let him off the hook until we get to his Estimates and we will find out how much he did or did not know about the matter. Bu t, Mr .

Speaker, we have the municip alities, strik ing their budgets in this month, being faced now with the requests for 1 O percent of the Capital contribution of flood protection, at a time when we heard that party, in opposition, constantly criti cize our govern ment anytime something came up.

They were saying that were pas sing the costs on to the municipal ities; we were passing the costs on to the user groups; we were passing costs on, that's how we were saving money, and here we find this government, in 3-and-1/2 short months, doing that very same thing without one word of consultation with the affective municip alities.

We have this Min ister sayi ng, "it is eminently reason- 428 able that we should make this request for 10 percent of the Capital costs from the municipalitie s affected." What this Min ister is prepar ed to do, which I belie ve is di ametrically opposed to what his party stands for, or tries to stand for in the eyes of Manitobans.

They are creating two classes of citizens in the Red Ri ver Valley; those who have received the majority of their permanent flood protection at the 10 0 percent cost of either the provincial and the federal government and no cost to the individu al resident via munici pal taxa tion; they are creating two classes of citizens, particu larly in the town of Brunkild which have not received pri mary flood protection, and if they are going to now they are going to have to pay 10 percent towards the cost of it.

Two cla sses of citizen from the party that claims they are for all Manitobans equally , fairly and equitably; two classes of citizens, Mr. Chairman. Now, this represents, Mr . Cha irman, a radica l departure in previous policy of the Department of Natural Resources undertaken by this Mini ster, by this department and this government.

They are now demanding, in cases where the cost-benefit ratio is greater than one, that no longer will the tradition of joint federal-prov incial, 10 0 percent funding be car ried on, but rather they are going to insist that individ ual municip alities now must bear a portion of that cost. That is a radical departure of policy, Mr. Chair man, it is a radi cal departure brought in by the N.D. Government, not by the former Progressive Conser vative Admin istration but by the New Democratic Party.

That is what their new pol icy is meaning to munici pal ities affected in flood zones where the flood pro tection costs are greater than the cost-benefit of one. That is the kind of consultation and cari ng govern ment that they are giving to rural Manitoba and tonight, Mr. Chair man, what is more reprehensible is that the Min ister has in essence, threatened those munic ip alit ies by sa ying that, wel l, if they don't like the new rules of the game then I supp ose we can spend that capital money elsewhere. Take it or leave it; my way or the highway; to hell with you and the municip alities.

We're not going to consult with you; we're ju st going to impose an arbit rary and radical change in previous policy and demand that they pay that 1 O percent or they don't get their flood protection. Now, Mr . Chairman, I don't think in the history of this province that kind of an uncaring and brutal atti tude has ever been adopted by a Provincial Govern ment towards the municip al ities. It has now in the past three-and-a-half months. It is a godfather offer that the Min ister is making to the municip alities; it's an offer they can't resist.

Put up 1 O percent of the cost or you don't get any flood protection and the next flood that comes along, you can drown. Bu t you have to put up 10 percent if we're going to help you to stop flood ing in your town and your villa ge. Onc e again, what can counci llors do at this late stage of the game when they're striking their new bu dgets? And I would ask this Min ister to seriously reconsider his position about demanding an extra 10 -percent contribution from those communities in the Red Riv er Valley who need additional flood pro tection.

I would ask him to reconsider his position; I would ask him to remove his gun-to-the-head offer, and I would ask him if he would drop the requir ement

Monday, 15 March, 1982 tonight, give us the commitment tonight that he will drop the requir ement of 10 percent contribution by those munic ip al ities so that they will not be forced to take nothing for flood protection if they don't agree. I would ask him to reconsider that. I would ask him to continue back on the former polic y where the Federal and Provincial Governments cover 10 0 percent of the costs, take the gun away from the heads of the muni c ip al counci llo rs in the Red Ri ver Valley. Would he consider that and would he give us that commitment tonight? MR. MA CKLING: Mr.

Chai rman, the Honourable Memb er for Pembina waxes indignant about equity for people in Manitoba. -(I nterjection)- He says, "You bet." You know, whether you're flooded in Car man or whether you'r e flooded in Morris, you're flooded; and I think people have a right to expect from their government the same sort of equitable treat ment. Now, what did the honourable member in his administration do in respect to his Town of Carman? Two years ago, they proposed that the Town of Carman finance the cost of diking to the tune of 15 percent.

Now, at the same time he said that he would say to the people of Morris, or the people of Letelli er, or the people of St. Jean, "You don't have to pay anything," but the people of Carman, "You have to pay 15 perce nt." You're going to treat some people a lot di fferently than other people. Mr . Chairman, that's what the honourable member was talking about: that's equit y. But what did the honourable member's adminis tration do? They worked out that arrange ment; they went back to the Federal Government and what kind of negotiations did they have? The answer, Mr .

Chairman, is that the Federal Government said no, and as a result of the Federal Government saying no, the honour able memb er's com pas siona te government did nothing for those people , nothing. Now, the honourable member says that we have offered something to these communities and it's high handed, it's arbitrary. I' ve indicated that if those ju ris di ctions have trouble with that, they have a Min ister that's prepared to listen to them and to talk to them about that financing and about that programming. Now, the honourable member says that's high handed.

Wel l, someone has to make a decision about the diking. We have the money in the budget, if they're prepared to take it we want them to take it, because we want the protection. If they don't want to take it cer tainly that would trouble us, but the money is there and we want to afford them that protection at 10 per cent not 15 percent of cost. So, the honourable member can make all he lik es about that, but that is a fair and equ itable arrangement. It's fair and equi table for those pe ople because the honourable member wanted to charge the people of Carman, Ste. Rose, Gimli or anywhere else 15 percent. MR.

ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, when the Min ister has been in his department a li ttle longer, he will understand recommendations made on the basis of a cost-benefit ratio, not rules that I have made ... MR. MACKLING: When you're flooded, you're flooded. MR. ORCHARD: ... but rule s that have been abide d by throughout Canada for providing flood protection for I don't know how long, and what we did -a nd the Min ister will know this in a few short months - we made the only offer that has ever been made to Gimli, Ste.

Rose and Carman who have been faced with flooding since the mid-60's on, and we made the only proposal in which they might be able to achieve some form of protection and certainly we asked them in Carman for 15 perce nt, and when the Federal Government would not participate, we had to start new negotiations and the Min ister says we di dn't do anything. 429 Now, Mr . Min ister, the monkey is on your back. What are you going to do? MR. MACKLING: Yes, that's right. You had the mon key on your back and you did nothing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. MR.

ORCHARD: And when the Federal Government is now cutting back in funding which has traditionally been 10 0 percent provincial and federal, when the cost-benefit is greater than one, what does this Mini s ter do? He cuts back and uses the excuse of the Federal Government cutback to carry more cost to the municip ali ties and make the citizens in those rural municip alities pay more. He's riding on the back of the Federal Government and he tries to make out that he's doing something fair and equi table for the people of Manitoba. Bal derdash, Mr . Chairman. That won't wash. MR. MACKLI NG: Mr.

Chairman, we've heard a lot of balderdash from the Honourable Memb er for Pem bina. When he wants to talk dollars no matter whether it's 15 percent or 1 O percent, he wants to treat eve ryone the same. It's not the same. You're demanding from the taxpayers of Carman or Gimli 5 percent more than what you want to demand from the people of Morris and that's equ ity and he talks about problems. Yes, you had those problems and you did n't deal with them. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(g )

(1) Salaries-pass; 4.(g)

(2) Exp enditures. The Member for Morris. MR. MANNESS: Is there a meeting at all being arranged this week, a meeting with the municipal ities in the area to explain this further or any other program of this nature? MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, the letter went out I understand, that's the fir st time I' ve heard of it, March the 4th and I haven't had any inqui ries yet, but cer tainly we will initiate inqui ries to see whether a meet ing is requested. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.( g) (2) -pass. MR.

SCOTT: Before we leave this item, I'd ju st like to bring up some poi nts on dealing with the 19 79 flood and with the rather pompous response that we've had this evening from some members of the official Oppo sition in regarding the supp osed callou sness of the

Monday, 15 March, 1982 present government towards municip alities -(I nter jection)- No, it didn 't. And I'd ju st lik e to recount a couple of things that happened in that '79 flood. The government was receiving notice for a couple of months period that we were expec ting a flood of some degree. As time went on, they became more aware that there was going to be a more serious flood.

I remember watching the then Premier standing on television telling the people there would not be a flood in Manitoba; we did not have to worry about a major flood when everything was flooding in North Dakota and when the levels were rising very rapidly in Emer son, refusing to admit ... MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for lnkster, I believe you're out of order. We are on Crop Production. MR. MACK LING: We're on (h). Yes, you'r e out of order, now. We've passed that. Let's comple te this. MR. SCOT T: Oh, I am sorry. We were on (g)(2). So we're on (h)( 1) now. MR. ENNS : Mr. Chairman, I move Committee rise. Mr .

Chairman, you have a motion before you that Committee rise. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of rising? All those opposed. The Nays have it. MR. EN NS: A recorded vote, Mr . Chairman. MR. MAC KLING : We can't have a recorded vote. MR. CHAIRMAN: I am advised that we can't have a recorded vote. MR. ANSTET T: A recorded vote on Committee to rise is in order at any time. We cannot have a vote after 10:00 p.m. to change or modify the Esti mates, that's all, but a vote for Committee rise is in order. MR. ENNS : A recorded vote, all those in favour of risi ng. MR.

KOV NATS: On a point of order, I would suggest that maybe the Cler k should count. A COUNTED VOTE WAS TAKEN the results bei ng as follows: Yeas, 7; Nays, 10 . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Motion that Committee rise was defeated. We're on 4.(h )

(1) Salaries-Pass. 4.(h) (2) ... The Member for Emerson. MR. DRIEDGE R: Mr. Chairm an, now we're going to have a new ball game here. Could the Chairm an indi cate where we're on right now? MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(h)(2). Public Expenditur es. MR. DRIEDGE R: That's fine. 430 MR. CHAIRMAN: Canada Manitoba ... Manitoba Crop Production. MR. DR I EDG ER: I thought there was a bit of a feeling here before that we would complete this

section and it would appear that we had given our consent that we now are not prepared to proceed with this section. I would lik e to ask the Min ister under the Canada ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. DRIEDGER: ... under the Canada-Manitoba Value -Added Crops Production Program, whether the Mi nister ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. DRIEDG ER: ... whether the Mi nister could indi cate whether there's any changes in the projects that were desig nated prior to the change of government? MR. MACKLING: Mr . Chairman, I don't belie ve so.

The Cooks Creek drai nage system, that one as , indi cated earlier is under review. MR. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, then I'd lik e to ask a question regarding the Marsh Ri ver Project that was part of the program or project that was agreed to. MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I understand that's provided for in the Capital Item - 13. MR. DRIEDGER: Could the Minis ter indicate which municip alities are involved under the Marsh River Program as it has been designated? MR. MACK LING : I am given to understand the RMs of Montcalm, Fr anklin, Morris and De Salaberry. MR.

DRIEDGE R: Have the municip alitie s and the Provincial Government agreed to cost-sharing formu las on the projects that are affecting each municipal ity? MR. MACKLING: There is a committee arrangement - I won't give you the specifics - but it involved the RMs and the costing is 60-40; 60 federal, 40 provi ncial; and the local municip alities look after the lesser waterways involved themselves. MR.

DRIEDGER: Could the Min ister possib ly indi cate between the four municip alities when he indi cates 60-40 between Federal and Provincial Govern ment - my understanding was when I saw one of the proposals that was being worked out by some of the resource people and the management people involved with the projects, that the relationship cost wise was much di fferent than 60-40 federal-pr ovincial and that the muncip alitie s only looked after the first and second order drains. My understanding was su bstan tial cost-sharing involved for the municipaliti es. MR.

MACKLING: My understanding is that the first and second order drains are being looked after by the local RMs and the third and higher are being looked after under these arrangements.

Monday, 15 March, 1982 MR. DRIEDGER: Mr . Chair man, then to the Min ister specifically on the Marsh Ri ver Project, in that particu lar project is there any work bei ng undertaken on the Marsh Ri ver itself in terms of cleaning out the Marsh River which is a natural waterway? MR. MAC KLING: I'm given to understand this is new, Mr. Chairm an, but all of this is dealt with under Item 13 under Capital . MR. DRIEDGER: I understand . MR. MA CKLING: If the honourable member wants to go on now, I have no trouble with that, but it is covered under Item No. 13. That's the Capital Items. MR.

DRIEDGE R: I have some di ffi cu lty with that. When we consider that under the previous arrange ment or the prev ious item here, we had $900,000 or $1 mill ion under the Capital Projects there as wel l, and here we have under the federal-prov incial arrange ments under the Value at a Crop Agreements certain monies that are going to be under the Capital Projects I realiz e that it's probably not. You know, this is one reason why we initially asked whether we could have the Capital Projects presented to us at the beginning of the Esti mates so that we knew where we were at in terms of asking these things.

Coming back to the agreement between the Federal Government and Provincial Government, I under stand initially it was a fi ve-year agreement that was signed. Could the Min ister indicate when the initial agreement was sig ned and when this program will terminate, because I think time is of essence here somewhere along the li ne? MR. MACKLING: I'm advised, Mr . Chairman, that the agreement was sig ned December, '78, and exp ires March 31, '84. MR. DRIEDGER: Thank you. I understand there's three major projects in progress right now.

There's the Cooks Creek one, the March Ri ver one and there's als o one to the western part of the prov in ce somewhere. MR. MACK LING: That's correct. MR. DRIEDGER: Is the Mi nister within his depar t ment consideri ng to approach the Federal Govern ment for an expanded program along these li nes? Certainly there are other areas.

The question that has been raised to me by municip al people, "Why should only a certain area have this benefit?" Why, for exam ple, could not the area of Southeast Manitoba where there is a crying need for drainage, why could not one of these areas be desig nated as that where we have virtually no drainage, where there is a requir ement for water storage, water drainage; where we have the whole Roseau Ri ver drainage basin involved with the creeks which lead fi rst of all from Manitoba into the States. into the Roseau Ri ver, and then back into our country again.

I'm ju st wondering, how are these pro jects establishe d and why can't we go back to the Federal Government and designate certain other areas where there is a cr ying need for these 431 kind of things? MR. MAC KLING: Mr. Chairman, I assume that the honourable member is referring to programs in the southeast area that obviously have been longstand ing; he complains that nothing has been done there. I don't know why nothing has been done. I am new to this ministry and I'll have to see why in the past four years nothing was done there.

In respect to the item we're dealing with, however, it deals with value added crops produc tion. This is where, ostensibly at least, there can be an improve ment in the crop production in the area if the drainage is im proved and it doesn't affect the southeast area. I don't know of any added value crop projects in that area, unless you can enlight me on that? MR. DRIEDGER: Mr . Chair man, I will be very pleased to try and shed some light on that matter.

We have an organization called SPADA, Stuartbu rn-Pi ney Agri cultur al Development Assocition, out there that have entered into an agreement with the Federal and Pro vincial Government in terms of establishing special ized crops, cash crops in the area: this is in conjunc tion with the programs that we had in place.

If the Min ister is indicating that we have done nothing in the southeast for four years, I would ju st lik e to put on record here what has happened: is that we have initiated a program of selling up Crown lands; I have mentioned it before and I will mention it again, and the selling of LGD vested lands.

In conjunction with that we have brought in the Tree Land Program where we have clear ed a lot of land; 16 ,000 acres have been put into production in ju st the last winter where the questioned program has been in effect, it's been a very instrumental program and I think the govern ment of the day is planning to expand that program.

Now, my request is to the Min ister: why could not an area - here we have a drainage problem in the southeast with the expanded developme nt that is tak ing pl ace if there ever was a need for a value added crop arrangement to be presented to the Federal Government, this would be an ideal sit uation. This is why I say I'm wondering how some of these projects were initially picked to begin with. Now, possibly we can say the previous administra tion did fine.

What I'm asking this government to do, this Min ister to do, is to go back to the federal people and say: hey, li sten, we have an extreme situation in the southeast where a program of this nature would ju st be totally beneficial for the LGDs. We have lim ited tax space and monies to be spent on drainage pro jects of this nature. So, I jus t wanted to draw this to the Min ister's atten tion and ask him whether he's prepared to go to the federal people and see whether we can have this kind of a program initiated for that corner? MR. MAC KLING: Wel l, Mr.

Chairman, I'm prepared to look at programs in any area of the province, whether they've been considered in the past or not, and that incl udes the area the honourable member is talkin g about. Now when I suggested that he was concerned about some drainage that he says has been of longstanding and something should be done, I'm referring to, of course, jus t what he's indicated.

Monday, 15 March, 1982 However. if some addit ional program is necessary there then I will be happy to consider it as and when the proposals are subm itted to me. I understand that there has been some special crop products consi dered under this program and that might apply in the southeast area. MR. DRIEDGER: Could the Min ister ju st maybe clar ify that a bit more? Under the present arrangement with the Federal Government it is also al most a value added program that is in pla ce there right now, but it does not involve the drainage at the present time. MR. MAC KLING: That's right. MR.

DRIEDGER: It is the Department of Agricultur e, I understand. MR. MACK LING: That's correct. MR. DRIEDGER: This is why I'm asking the Min ister, because it has already been desig nated under the Agricultur e Program for certain crop improvements, whether he would consider applying that same basis on the drainage aspect through the water resources to the Federal Government. MR. MA CKLING: Mr. Chair man, as I indic ated to the honourable member, I'm prepared to look at any rea sonable proposal from any area. MR.

DRIEDGER: I would ju st like to indicate to the Min ister that I will be working, and as I hope that he will, be working together with the councils and the LGDs to come forward with a proposal for the Mini s ter to consider along those li nes. MR. MA CKLING: Sure. we're open to anyone - an open government. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Morris. MR. MANNES S: I was wonderi ng if the Minis ter could indicate or give us the li st of all the drainage programs that are under the Canada-Manitoba Value Added Crops Production Agreement. MR. MAC KLING: I'll be able to give that detail under Item 13 ; that's the capital.

MR. MANNESS: What you're saying is that everyone of those projects are . . MR. MACK LING: Involves capital . MR. MANN ESS: Fine. What share of the total Agro Man Program falls into Natural Resources, specifi cally into the Water Resources Section? MR. MACK LING: We have to split some of the items out. Mr. Chairman. 6.8 mill ion. MR. MANNESS: That's not a share? MR. MACKLI NG: No. that's the total cost: total 5-year cost. 432 MR. MANNESS: The total AgroMan agreed cost? MR. MACKLING: Yes. MR. MAN NESS: What share of that is going to accrue to the Water Resources? MR. MACK LING: It would be 2.5 mill ion. MR.

MANNESS: Rather than a li st which you may furnish under

Section 13 as to the projects. can you tell me ... MR. MAC KLING: No hangup about furnishing it right now. MR. MANNESS: Fi ne. MR. MACKLING: Although the Cooks Creek Area Project is still un der review, it is included; the Marsh Ri ver Area Project; the La Salle Ri ver Area Project; the Morris Ri ver Area Project. The Domain Crop Area Demonstration Project: and the Alma sippi Wet Sands Management Project. MR. MANNESS: Could you tell me specifically what the La Salle Ri ver Project involves? MR. MAC KLING: What it involves? MR.

MAN NESS: Yes, what is the intent of this particu lar program, what was the program attempting to do? MR. MACK LING: The description that I have is the La Sal le Ri ver Area Project is proposed to include activi ties in the La Salle Riv er Watershed and on adjacent lands. The project area extends east from Portage la Prairie along the south bank of the Assinib oine Ri ver through to the Red Riv er south of Winnip eg. There are 520,000 acres of crop land with 14 percent in special crops.

The adoption of advanced land and water management technology can increase crop yields by 15 percent and would provide opportunities for diver sification of crop production. Activities would include channel improvements in co-ordination with exten sion activities provided by the province to im prove agricu ltur al practices. That's what the project appar ently is. MR. MANNESS: The emp hasis on this particular program, is it towards better drainage or is it towards ir rigation? I couldn't read out of that. MR. MACK LING: My advice is that it's intended to improve drainage but with the value-added crops benefit.

MR. MANNESS: I'm sorry, I did n't hear that. MR. MACKLING: I'll give it to you again. The benefit is to improve drainage plus to provide the added benefit of ir rigation to crops. Just drainage, I' m sorry. Specifical ly drainage. MR. MANNESS: There was no ir rigation potential whatsoever considered in this study?

Monday, 15 March, 1982 MR. MACK LING: Not on these projects. no. MR. MANNE SS: Specifically. what drainage consid erations were being looked at. at this time and in what area? MR. MACK LING : I'm sorry. what was the question? MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you ask the question again, please? MR. MANNESS: Specifically, what drainage improve ments were being considered? MR. MACK LING: In the La Salle ? MR. MANNESS: In the La Salle Study. MR. MACK LING: Impr ovement of existing drains and laterals. MR. MAN NES S: Was the Mill s Wheatland drain one of those? MR. MACK LING : Yes. MR.

MANNES S: And what is the status of that partic ul ar drain at this time? MR. MACKL IN G: It's in the detail of the Capital item. MR. MANNES S: Do I understand that then to mean that there will be spend ing al located towards that particular drain this coming year? MR. MAC KLING: If we get to Item 13 and if it's approved. MR. MANN ESS: What types of crops were being envisaged as far as value-added. I think, crops production? MR. MACKLING: I don't have those details at hand. I'm sur e that we'll have them when we get to Item 13 . MR.

MANN ESS: The Morris Ri ver. specifical ly, what types of programs are being envisaged along this drainage course? MR. MACKLING: I think I can give all those specific details under Item 13 because again that's in the Capi tal item. MR. MANN ESS: You were so kind to read me the description on the La Salle ... MR.

MAC KLING : If you want the detail on each one and providing I don't have the same qu estions under Item 13 , I'd be happ y to deal with it now. but if we're going to have it again for those members of the Com mittee who are not here, then it would be better if they know that we're deal ing with that item that they'd be interested to hear it. MR. MANNE SS: Seeing three of these projects in fact do fall within my constituency, I think ... MR. MACKLING: I'd be happy to give you that infor mation under Item 13 if you want it then. You want it now. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I would caution you once again that this is bei ng recorded and I' d ask you to be rec ognized by the Chair; otherwise, they're having trou ble taping. The Me mber for Morris. MR. MANNE SS: Are you that indi cating to both of us? MR. CHAI RMAN: Yes, I'm indica ting that to both of you. You have a question? MR. MANNESS: I'm waiting for an answer. MR. MACKLING: I'm advised, Mr. Chairman. that the Morris Ri ver area project is an area that incl udes lands within the Morris Riv er Watershed and contains 580,000 acres of crop land with 23 percent in special crop production.

Most of the grain corn produced in Manitoba is grown in the well drained soils in this area. Crop productivity constraints are excess water in wet years, particu larly in the heavy soil area and drought in dry years in the lighter soil areas. The adoption of advanced land and water management techniq ues will provide opportunities for increased productivity and expanded acreage devoted to spe cial crops.

Activities will include channel improve ments in co-ordination with extension activities pro vided by the province to improve agricul tural practices and I'm sure the honourable member would lik e to give detail on all the other items. Correct? MR. MANNE SS: I'd lik e to ask some specific ques tions on the Morris Riv er. Along what stretch of the Morris Ri ver are we talking about? It's a long river. it's some 20 miles long. 433 MR. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, we don't have the map with us, but the Morris Riv er is an extensive river but it is particular sections of that drainage basin that are being dealt with under this program. MR. MANN ESS: I realize that. I'm wondering if you can tell me which specific sections. That's my question. MR. MACKLI NG: If I give you the ·section, township and range, would that be help ful? MR. MAN NESS: It would be helpful if I could go and get my constituency map so I could make reference - I would prefer a town location if I could. MR.

MACK LING: We'll have that detail. but we don't have it now because we di dn't think we were going to be on Item 13 tonight. but I'm giving you as much information as I can now. MR. MANNESS: Will the Min ister then allow me to ask questions specific to this under 13 then? MR. MAC KLING : Surely.

Monday, 15 March, 19 82 MR. MANNE SS: I then would like to ask a question further to the fourth project that you li sted and you may want to again read it out because I wasn't able to write it all down. I belie ve it was called the Domain Crop Im provement. MR. MACK LING: Yes, it's called the Domain Crop Area Demonstration Project. This demonstration will provide opportunities for evaluation of methods of optimizing water and land management programs. The comprehensive system will be developed in the domain area where excess precipi tation, heavy soils and flat topography combine to inhib it productivity.

A comprehensive land and water system would be put in pla ce which will allow for docum entation of pro ductivity changes which can be realized from an optimized system of land and water management. The project will serve as a demonstration of the methods of optimizing productivity for a large land area with simil ar problems. MR. MANNE SS: I should probably put on the record that in fact this particula r project is very close to my home, so I would like to ask some specific questions about it. Fir st of all, how was this particular drain selected?

What was the criteria established that brought forward this drain as a demonstration drain? MR. MACK LING: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that a committee of officials from Agricultur e and Natural Resources studied areas and came up with this area as a good project area for testing given the soil condi tions and water and other characteristics indic ated in the study. MR. MANNE SS: Can the Min ister give me some indi cation as to how much money was expended in this particular project in 19 81? MR. MACKLING: I could give you that particular dur ing consideration of the item under Item 13 . MR.

MANNESS : Could the Minis ter also tell me spe cifically who in the Water Resources Branch took the responsibi li ty or has the responsibi li ty for managing this particular project? MR. MAC

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-13b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 13b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7b4a14b4a6496b234ec1d097a226244f300a7e8f

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