Manitoba Hansard — 18 May 2012 (Sitting 36C, 40th Legislature, 1st Session)

40-1-36c

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session - Fortieth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Daryl Reid Speaker Vol. LXIV No. 36C - 10 a.m., Friday, May 18, 2012 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Fortieth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital NDP ALLUM, James Fort Garry-Riverview NDP ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley NDP ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thompson NDP BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli NDP BLADY, Sharon Kirkfield Park NDP BRAUN, Erna Rossmere NDP BRIESE, Stuart Agassiz PC CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East NDP CHIEF, Kevin, Hon. Point Douglas NDP CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan NDP CROTHERS, Deanne St.

James NDP CULLEN, Cliff Spruce Woods PC DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk NDP DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood PC EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne Lac du Bonnet PC FRIESEN, Cameron Morden-Winkler PC GAUDREAU, Dave St. Norbert NDP GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Liberal GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach PC GRAYDON, Cliff Emerson PC HELWER, Reg Brandon West PC HOWARD, Jennifer, Hon. Fort Rouge NDP IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri, Hon. Fort Richmond NDP JHA, Bidhu Radisson NDP KOSTYSHYN, Ron, Hon. Swan River NDP LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. Dawson Trail NDP MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St.

Johns NDP MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden PC MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Flor, Hon. Logan NDP MARCELINO, Ted Tyndall Park NDP McFADYEN, Hugh Fort Whyte PC MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel NDP MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East PC NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake NDP OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River NDP PEDERSEN, Blaine Midland PC PETTERSEN, Clarence Flin Flon NDP REID, Daryl, Hon. Transcona NDP ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Kewatinook NDP RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia NDP ROWAT, Leanne Riding Mountain PC SARAN, Mohinder The Maples NDP SCHULER, Ron St. Paul PC SELBY, Erin, Hon. Southdale NDP SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St.

Boniface NDP SMOOK, Dennis La Verendrye PC STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo PC STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin NDP SWAN, Andrew, Hon. Minto NDP TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris PC WHITEHEAD, Frank The Pas NDP WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WIGHT, Melanie Burrows NDP WISHART, Ian Portage la Prairie PC

1417 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, May 18, 2012 The House met at 10 a.m. ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) GOVERNMENT BUSINESS COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION Mr. Chairperson (Mohinder Saran): Order. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply will now resume consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Infrastructure and Transportation. As previously agreed, questions for this department will proceed in a global manner. The floor is now open for questions. Mr. Dennis Smook (La Verendrye) : Good morning. I'll start off here, Mr. Minister. I've got a few questions in regards to some things in– happening in my constituency. PR 310, from Highway 12 to the border, is approximately two and a half miles.

On the Canadian side it's a 74,000-pound road, is what I call it, and on the American side it's an 80,000- pound road. And I've had a lot of concerns from constituents how that can be rectified, because it's only 6,000 pounds, but in the trucking industry it does make a big difference when you're hauling a lot of miles, you know, for your net pay on that. And I've toured a lot of the roads in the area, like the ro ad that goes through Vassar. It's up–it's –the road is not as good shape as even as the 310 is, the 89 south of Piney. So I'm just wondering, is there anything we could do?

I know, you know, not necessarily to rebuild the road, but if it had to be patched in a few spots, but is there any way we could get that road upgraded to an 80,000-pound road? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation): Yes, I appreciate the member raising the issue. It's not unusual. Some border situations, both interprovincial, you know, with Saskatchewan and Ontario, also internationally as well, you know, and, in fact, we have numerous cases where the opposite is the case, you know, where our highway's higher loading is a better highway than in the neighbouring jurisdiction.

Certainly, on the–in the Canadian context, we've moved to some harmonization with Saskatchewan, which is helping in terms of border, particularly on RTAC, but I'll get a bit of detail on that highway, and I'll certainly get back to the member, and I appreciate him raising it with me. Mr. Smook: Mr. Minister, the Trucking Productivity Improvement Fund, how many dollars does that bring in in a year? Mr. Ashton : We have currently 17 companies. I'll get the exact amount. We did read it into t he record, actually, yesterday.

And just on the Highway 310, just to give the member some sense of the kind of dynamics there, B and B1 road that –you're talking about a million dollars a kilometre in terms of getting, you know, to the kind of level you're talking about. So, you know, there is a cost issue, and, again, it's similar to what we deal when we look at the highways capital project list throughout the province. You know, it's getting a balance. Oh, and if the –if it would be okay with the member, I was going to read some of the answers from yesterday, which may be useful for follow -up questions for members.

Cost pave one kilometre of highway, and staff advises me that the most important thing to say is, it depends, which I, actually, I would have said myself, but they have "it depends" with numbers to back it up. Resurfacing a two -lane highway, you're probably in the range of about half a million dollars kilometre. A new two -lane gravel highway is from 1 to 1.5 million dollars kilometre. A new tw o-lane paved highway, 2 to 2.5 million kilometre. That includes, of course, the whole thing. And a four-lane is between 4 to 5 million dollars a kilometre.

That doesn't include bridge crossings, any train issues, construction in remote areas. So it's, again, it–and it's in quotation marks–it depends. Long combination of vehicles on two- lane highways, general not recommended. We are

1418 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2012 undertaking a pilot on Highway 6. Part of the issue is whether drivers expect to see LCVs, but, you know, standard length semi-trailer units are what people are expecting to see, so safety's compromised. And also a high volume of traffic magnifies this concern. Some two -lane routes have significant weekend volume peaks as well, too, so that becomes an issue: 16, 3 and Highway 1 east of Falcon Lake, so that's some of the rationale there. And on the issue of extending the 110- kilometre

section on PT 1– Highway 1, Highway 75, again, we're evaluating what's happening where we have already extended it. And so I did give the member the number of firms involved, and I can get the dollar amount on that trucking improvement fund. Mr. Smook: Mr. Minister, going back to the three – the PR 310, it is a short piece of road, and there are several other areas that have a less standard of road that I think are in poorer shape than what that road would be.

Is there any way to just reclassify those two and a half miles or anything that, so that – because I know that it's probably going to be a few years before the money'll be available to rebuild i t. But has the department ever thought of looking at the road itself? I mean, it's classified as a B1, but have they ever thought of reclassifying it just for those two and a half kilometres to –because it does make a big difference for those trucks that ar e coming off 12, like, and it's –it is only 6,000 pounds. Is there anything that they could look at for that? Mr.

Ashton: Well, again, you know, there are issues that we also look at and I go–you know, and I'm advised through it, you know, the US border thinks restricted hours, you know, so that's probably what's taken into account in terms of setting of priorities. * (10:10) But I'll–what I'll do is perhaps take the member raising the issue as having raised the issue and certainly appreciate him raising t hat. As I said, it's not unique to border situations, both with the US and within Canada on the provincial boundaries, so we'll certainly take it under advisement. Mr.

Smook: Regarding spring road restrictions, if a business is surrounded totally by 65 pe r cent roads, what are his options to be able to move freight in and out of his business in the springtime during restrictions? Mr. Ashton: It's a hypothetical, but I suspect it's a real situation, so I'm wondering if the member wanted to put it in terms of the actual situation. It might be easier to respond. Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Go through the Chair and let me first recognize you.

And also consider a minister as third person as compared to saying "you." Say "the minister" or "he." I think that's the procedure and we should follow that. Thank you. Mr. Smook : Mr. Minister, it –the situation is that there's a business that's off of Garvin Road. The municipality has all of their roads at 65 per cent, and that stretch of Garvin Road is also at 65 p er cent. They used to be able to get a permit from the department allowing them a couple of trips a week in and out of there. But now they've been told they can't have a permit anymore.

They have to go to the trucking productivity; like, the permit would be, I guess, for just to bring him up to an 80 or a 90 per cent? Mr. Ashton: I assume what it is, is the directions go through the trucking improvement fund where essentially we –the companies are part of it –we do allow greater loads, and there's a payment to the fund that reflects the impact on the roads, either in terms of additional maintenance or impact on the road. And one thing I can tell the member is , if you have a road that's restricted, it's for a very good reason.

You know, vehicle traffic has an impact, but trucking, in particular, has an impact, and you can have one –one truck can be the eq uivalent of, you know, a thousand cars in terms of wear and tear on a road, and particularly at vulnerable times, you know, during the spring when you've got, you know, wet base, it can be a real problem.

So I'm assuming what's happened in this case is they have been referred to the trucking improvement fund which is, as I said, I think there's 17 firms that do partake in it, and it does allow them to pay somewhat more into a system that does allow them to do two things: one is to have the additional weight, but also gets them some revenue back into the road itself to either repair it or, down the line, reconstruct it. Mr. Smook: On page 16 of the grey supplementary, it lists major projects. What are they? Eleven major projects.

May 18, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1419 Mr. Ashton: I assume the member's referring to the– there's 11 full-time positions? Yes, so you just want a description of what major projects refers to? Yes. There are–this refers to the project managers for major government projects in what's essentially the government services side. We do have some significant projects–I think they are listed –you know, the more general description is on 98, so it's – you know, we have 11 of them. There's project management; also have the– you know, the technical

section of the branch. And we, just to remind the member, we do–this department does deal with everything from jails to post -secondary colleges, as well as the transportation side of the department which deals with, obviously, significant transportation-related policies. Mr. Smook: These 11 positions, would they be just term positions, or are they part of government at all times? Mr. Ashton: Full time. Yes, I mean they're full-time staff, fairly senior staff, that do co -ordinate very complex projects. Of course, we do access consulting company services, and it's obviously the construction that takes place.

But our department does basically take the lead on the construction side of these projects. And so that's the kind of thing, I think, to give you some sense of the kind of projects we've been involved over the last number of years, some significant corrections facilities. And I'm sure the member's aware of a number of them that have been opened the last several years, significant college facilities, Assiniboine Community College, in particular. And we're now currently involved with a major construction in terms of the University College of the North, both in Thompson and in The Pas.

So those are the time –the type of some of the, you know, major projects that are a significant part of this department's mandate. Mr. Smook : Mr. Minister, on page 16, 15- 4(b), maintenance waterway projects. Could you give us a list of what they are? Mr. Ashton : It's–yes, this is maintenance on the entire provincial system. So anything that's in the provincial system, provincial drains, I guess reservoirs, anything of that nature, this is the maintenance section. So probably the easy answer would be if you look at what is provincial, part of the provincial system, that's where the maintenance takes place. Mr.

Smook : Mr. Minister, on page 34, Lieutenant-Governor's operations, when was the last time the Lieutenant-Governor's car was upgraded? Mr. Ashton : It was purchased by the previous – under the term of the previous Lieutenant -Governor. So that gives you some idea of the vintage, and it is maintained regularly. And we follow the same sort of approach we do with, you know, fleet vehicles. I mean, this is, you know, a life cycle for vehicles. They're maintained over that period of time.

So, in that particular case, you know, the point in time where the vehicle is in need of replacing it, it's 'replained' on a–replaced on a routine basis. Mr. Smook: Thank you, Mr. Minister. On page 39, division executive office . What changes in staff, if any, occurred in this department? Mr. Ashton: What I was going to suggest what we did yesterday, if it's agreeable with the member, I'll sort of take questions and as I get the answers.

I can, you know, provide additional information, rather than take up the valuable time with the –with pauses that, you know, don't actually provide much opportunity to ask questions. So we'll follow through as we're speaking, and if we don't get it right now I can also provide information, you know, either at a follow-up meeting or in writing to the critics or members. Mr. Smook: Thank you, Mr. Minister. That will be okay. On page 49, 511 road conditions, is there any pending updates to the website? Mr. Ashton : Well, we've, as the member kn ows, rolled out the 511 service as being quite well received.

I mean, I think there'll be more use of it this upcoming year because there's more awareness. And it is a very, you know, it's a very useful tool, particularly in the winter when weather conditi ons can change very quickly. And we do maintain it based on the changes in source information. * (10:20) The key thing here, too, is the –in addition to the web-based at the side that you have a menu -based phone system that does allow people to get their direct information. So, if you wanted to, in my case drive home to Thompson, you know, you can go through the various menus.

You can get very up-to-date information on the weather and highway conditions. So it's–the key element of 511, of course, is that interactive phone –well, it's the interactive

1420 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2012 phone system. It's very specific and allows you to get targeted information. Mr. Smook : Mr. Minister , p age 52, bridges and water dam maintenance: Which dams will be upgraded in 2012-2013, and at what cost? Mr. Ashton: I'll see if we can get a list of some of the activities in that area for the member. We–in a general sense, I can say we've been very much focused on both the capital, maintenance side with bridges.

We have identified 80 bridges that were fl ood impacted, that –a lot that require a complete replacement or a significant repair or, in some cases, some degree of minor repairs. But there's at least 80, and that's just flood related. But, of course, we have ongoing issues related to bridge not all of which are structural. Some are, obviously, condition of the bridge deck, you know, so it's–so I wouldn't want people to always assume that we have structural issues we're dealing with.

And many cases, too, the activities are precautionary; you know, they're done not to–they're not based on any imminent structural problem with the bridge, but, you know, to maintain the structural integrity over time. So I can get the member, you know, a list of some of the kind of projects that we're involved in, but it will be fairly extensive, because we are–we're involved not just with the flood but, you know, with a comprehensive program with bridges.

And what it does reflect, by the way, is an increasing part of the capital budget, which has increased overall, but an increasing percentage of the capital budget that's involved with both maintenance of bridges and capital construction of bridges. Mr. Smook : Mr. Minister, dam maintenance was one of the questions in there. Like, is there a fair number of, like, which dams –are there any dams in there that will be upgraded in two thousand–like the bridges, but are there any dams as well? Mr. Ashton: I'll get the member a list of all of the water infrastructure that will be maintained.

And there is a significant revie w that does take place, and we have a lot of water works in the system. And again, we do have an ongoing maintenance project –oh, you know, which is obviously not specifically related on the, you know, the capital side, which is also fairly significant as well. So I'll get the member a list of some of the focuses and it may, probably, not be available till either next sitting of the committee or, you know, in writing if we've completed the Estimates consideration. Mr. Smook: On page 56, what is the infrastructure deficit on bridge repairs and upgrades?

Is that in– going to be included in that what you'll be provided us? Mr. Ashton : You know, I –the term infrastructure deficit is a good concept, but how useful it is in reality, I would question and it's speculative. You know, I could give you numbers in the billions; I could give you numbers in the hundreds of millions. It really depends on how you define what the infrastructure deficit is. Do you –you know, is it highways, bridges, you know, structures that need some repair work? Is it things that we would like to have or be, you know, part of a wish list and that?

We're not–the reason I say that is I –there is an infrastructure deficit and–but it's easier to get a sense of that, by the way, more at the specific project level, and the real issue there is if we're making progress or not. To give you some sense with bridges, for example, [inaudible] the focus of the questions, we have moved very significantly to inspect bridges. We have a significant bridge inspection program. I can give the member details in that if he's interested. This predates the impact of the floods of 2009 and this past year. So we have a significant inspection program.

We've been putting in more and more work on bridges that reflect replacement or repair of bridges. We have bridges in the system –I think, our oldest would–we've had bridges going back to the 1920s, although I wouldn't want people to assume that's necessarily the bridges that need replacing. Sometimes our older bridges are actually in better shape than some of the ones that were built 40, 50 years ago, but –go figure. That's, you know, maybe a comment on the construction lifespan that we have nowadays, the, you know, perceived lifespan.

So, you know, if you wanted to get into some of those challenges, but you then also end up with, you know, some of the issues related to, you know, bridges that we might build in the future, and their – areas that we are under, you know, pressures –I give the member example of Norway House. We have a bridge into Cross Lake, a community of about six, seven thousand people. There is a ferry into Norway

May 18, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1421 House. Norway House will also be the terminus of the east-side road in that region. So, down the line, we've alread y identified there might be a need for a bridge, but you include that in the infrastructure deficit. Just to give you, by the way –and actually, I do have some of the details that might be useful to give you some sense on the inspection side. There's over 1,500 level 1 bridge inspections, over 640 level 2 bridge inspections and 34 level 3 inspections that were completed, and this is from 2010- 2011.

There are over 2,000 level 1 bridge inspections, 650 level 2 bridge inspections in 2011 and '12, and due to t he flood, this is, again, over this past year, another 300 affected–over 300 sites were inspected. I can give the member the regional breakdown. I'm not sure it would be really useful to get into all of the bridges, but if you look at the volume, you're seeing it's pretty well– you know, it's the entire inventory that we're going through over that two-year period.

So flood inspections–the Red River region, there were 80 -plus sites that were inspected; Interlake region–50-plus sites; and in the western region – 200-plus sites. So that gives you some sense of the geographic impacts. Major structures were visited at least once a day during the peak flood events, and bi -weekly outside of the peak events, minor structures were visited at least once a week. So t hat gives you some sense of the fact that it's not just a one-off, and these are, kind of, some of the unsung heroes of the flood, if you like.

We mobilized seven inspection crews to assist with flood inspections and the crews were mobilized for periods of one to five months for on -site inspections. So, looking ahead, we're looking at approximately 2,250 level 1 and 640 level 2 inspections in the upcoming year. To give you a bit of a background on how many bridges and structures we have in the system, t here's over 3,800, and so there's a–you know, it's a series of things we look at. They range from, you know, as the member would know, concrete, steel, timber, et cetera.

So this is part of our –you know, you get some sense of our current policies, and just to give the member some further detail on what the policy is, all major bridges on provincial trunk highways are inspected at least every 24 months. That's –there's 396 of them. Major bridges on provincial roads and main market roads –every 48 months and 602 of them. The minor bridges –every 72 months and there's 345 of them. So there's an ongoing, regular inspection program. As you can see, we've added additional inspections for floods, and this has been in place for a number of years.

And out of that inspection, obviously, the vast majority of our bridges are not impacted–don't have structural problems. But it does gives you some sense of, you know–80 bridges we've identified already from the flood and why there's also, you know, that thorough inspection program where you're seeing more and more identification and work that's required under the capital budget. * (10:30) So, you know, the inspection is the first step, but it is driving more expenditures there. So, you know, it–to put a artificial number on infrastructure deficit really depends on your definition.

And the key thing we're focusing on is maintaining those bridges. We have some new bridges that are being built or some replacement bridges that are being built to a higher standard. And that bas ically is, you know, the quick

summary of our bridge policy. Mr. Smook: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Speaking about the east -side road project, what will be happening in 2012- 2013 as far as the east side? Are there any specific plans? Mr. Ashton : The minister responsible for the East Side Road Authority is the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Mr. Robinson). It does –you know, there's capital funding that's identified through this department, but he's the minister responsible for the East Side Road Authority. There is a significant amount of work that is being planned.

Member's probably aware there's –a route selection has already taken place, and I believe there's in the range of 80 to 85 million dollars budgeted for what's a very historic project this year. And in terms of details, he would be able to provide more information–or directly with the East Side Road Authority. I think most of their plans have been, you know, publically available, but I'm sure would there be no difficulty providing the member with a detailed update on –in terms of where the East Side Road Authority is at. Mr. Smook: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

1422 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2012 Motor carriers. What are the fuel tax dollars received from other provinces or states, and what is the dollar amount we send back to other provinces or states for fuel taxes? Mr. Ashton: I've got the trucking improvement fund numbers, so I'll perhaps read that in the record and then respond: 2011, okay, the revenue including interest is $108,570; total fund balance is $1,072,762. And, again, some of that is being used for highway renewal. Again, I mean, the whole intent of the fund is to balance that out.

Now, I want some clarification in terms of what the member is talking about, fuel tax revenue. Mr. Smook: On page 59–sorry, on page 63. If Mr. Minister is not able to find it, it's–could be because this is a– Mr. Chairperson: Honourable Minister. Mr. Ashton: Yes, appreciate the member identifies– on–the

section on page 62 under motor carrier permits and development. Yes, we'll get the details. Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): And I had a few questions related to the east -side project, and you indicated that the planning was being done through Aboriginal affairs. Is that correct? Mr. Ashton: The east-side road is being built by the East Side Road Authority, and the minister responsible for the East Side Road Authority is the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs. Mr. Wishart: And the tendering process, then, Mr. Minister, is handled by them, or is it handled by MIT? Mr.

Ashton : Yes, they do their own tendering directly, so it's through the East Side Road Authority. Mr. Wishart: So any questions re garding that tendering process, we would have to go to them. That's not something they're going to refer back to you? Mr. Ashton: It does appear on our website , but they basically have full authority, both budgetary and the authority to do the tendering. So we, yes, we wouldn't be in a position to answer those questions. But the minister responsible for the East Side Road Authority will. Mr.

Wishart: I just wanted to touch again–and you did give us an update on the emergency channels that were done last su mmer and into the fall, Lake St. Martin to Big Buffalo, and then the following one, Big Buffalo to Lake Winnipeg. The licensing processes that will have to follow, because they were done on an emergency basis, could you enlighten us as to what we will, or what you will, have to pursue in terms of licensing for that? Mr.

Ashton : Yes, we were able–I mean , it's a different circumstance, as the member knows ; he identified it quite correctly, between the emergency situation and the more normal situation. We di d consult and have significant discussions with the federal agencies that are involved. DFO, of course, is always involved, and very involved, and I do want to put on the record that it was very clear identification by the federal agencies of the emergency nature of the project. I'm not sure if the member's talking about moving to a permanent channel, or a permanent operation of the channel.

Once you're outside of the emergency situation, you would have to go through the normal processes, and the key thing I want to stress is that what we are going to be doing is we have the ability to close off the channel. We're certainly not going to be bulldozing it in. It will remain in place and what we are going to be doing is twofold. We are going to be doing a fair amount of assessment on the environmental impacts. I don't want to understate them. I don't want you to make any assumptions that there weren't some environmental impacts.

When you have a major project of that nature, you're bound to get some impacts. That's important because if we do proceed to, you know, any further developments, any further outlets, that will be very important information.

The second thing is we do have that independent review that is taking place, of flood mitigation, and I'm fully an ticipating, even though it's an arm's-length process, that they will address some of the related issues, you know, related to the outlet, including permanent outlet or not or any extensions to the outlet or any other issues related to additional outlets fr om Lake Manitoba combined with, you know, additional relief out of Lake St. Martin.

So I'm fully anticipating that that will be a part of it and, indirectly, I would assume the regulatory review that's taking place on the regulation of Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin, that they will probably address some of these issues as well. I don't want to, again, tell them what to do or not to do. That's–it's an arm's -length process, but I'm fully

May 18, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1423 anticipating that they will be predicating their ability to maintain a lake level on both those lakes on, you know, what the situation was before with flood–with water infrastructure, what the situation is now, post the outlet, and what the future situation might be in terms of, you know, additions to that structure. Because clearly we–even though it was done for emergency purposes, if we needed to do it again in another emergency, we could, without permanent structures.

I mean it's a very –the member's probably aware, it's a fairly straightforward process to open and close it, and what, to a certain extent, happens, as well, too, is once the level of the lake comes down, the level in the whole systems comes down.

So there's a very significant difference between what you might see during peak period and what you see when it' s eventually closed off in order from the Hoop and Holler, which is, you know, almost in the member's back yard–well, not too far away. * (10:40) So my sense is those'll be very important considerations of those independent reviews, and just to confirm a gain that the latest information we have is that they will be proceeding to public outreach fairly shortly –I'm assuming early in the summer, from the information I have.

I'm not going to pre-empt what they may announce, but they've certainly indicated, in some of the information we have from them, that they're looking at a fairly comprehensive set of meetings in the summer which, of course, is very shortly. Mr. Wishart: And thank you, Mr. Minister, for the updates. So no applications for more permanent licensing for either of these channels will be moving forward until after the entire review process is completed, is that correct? Mr.

Ashton: Yes, that's a correct statement, largely because there is that overall review, as I said, and we might be moving to a more permanent structure, but also because the infrastructure that's there that was done, remains there, could be used again fairly easily in the case of an emergency. So I'm assuming one of the big issues that will come out of this review is do we need to move to permanent structures or not, and what the time period might be for permanent structures.

I mean, I do want to stress that if we had to do a project like this–you know, we did much of the same sort of review we would have done for the project, but we did it in a very short period of time, and we had excellent co -operation from, you know, the federal agencies. And it's not that we didn't do environmental work; we did identify environmental issues. The actual construction was very cognizant of environmental issues. The operation of the structures was very cognizant of environmental issues.

I don't want to underestimate, you know, the fact that we're dealing wi th, you know, community fisheries, you know, and a lot of other issues that are important along with the flooding. So it's not that we didn't do that, but we didn't have the same, more lengthy, more formalized approval structures. So, yes, the bottom line here is we're not moving immediately to any permanent usage or starting those processes, but we're certainly not ruling it out. I would assume that will be a part of the recommendations coming out of the report, whether we actually need to do that or not. Mr. Smook: Mr.

Minister, what is the deadline for applications under the disaster financial assistant program, for people affected by the 2011 flood? Mr. Ashton: Yes, similar question was asked recent. We have not moved to deadlines, recognizing that we have many areas of the province where people are only just getting back in and able to assess damage. We still have some areas that, quite frankly, even that's not necessarily possible. You know, we have 2,400 evacuees currently, so as we do with similar situations, and we –as we've done in the past, there's no immediate deadline.

But at some point in time we will move to, you know, to a deadline, but not at this point. We want to make sure that people have every opportunity to apply for DFA coverage for eligible costs and, as I mentioned, when we had some more detailed discussion on this, we're already at about $650 million worth of overall expenditures. And DFA is a very significant part of that.

I did read in the record the number of claims that have been processed and completed, some of the open claims that are still out there, and some very significant payouts that have already taken place, particularly, by the w ay, to municipalities. There's been some very significant municipal damage, but we've also had significant payouts to individuals as well. But there's no cut -off that's imminent. We want to make sure everybody has every opportunity to get the coverage they're entitled to.

1424 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2012 Mr. Smook : The legislative lock replacement program, could you give me status on it? Mr. Ashton : I know they have been replacing the locks with a more secure electronic system that reflects the heritage 'nater' –nature of the building. I know that because my lock has been replaced. I assume the member's has as well. And I can probably get some details on that for the member, maybe not today, but, yes, the intent is to move to a more secure system.

I can say generally, by the way, in term s of the Legislature, there have been a number of enhancements the last number of years. But, you know, we do continue to try and balance the public accessibility. But, certainly, compared to a few years ago, we now have, you know, a very significant use of security cameras, you know, up- to-date security cameras on the building, and it's amazing, if you talk to the security staff, what they pick up. There was a situation a few years ago where two young people were–should I put the term on the record? –were smoking up by the fountain.

And one of our security guards did go out and just let them know they were on video, and I think did make some reference that, you know, it might be sent to their parents. I don't think they came back after that, but that's how accurate the security cameras are. And what's happening with the lock enhancement, again, is to move to a more secure system. The key, as the member will know, is –does have a, you know, electronic ability to signal. But the key element there, by the way, is that we're trying to maintain the heritage nature of the building, so that's why there still is a key.

There were a couple of other options they did look at that would have, you know, not maintained that heritage nature of the building. So that's sort of the broad discussion, and I know quite a few offices have been replaced. And I think my associate deputy minister is sending out a BlackBerry message as we speak to see if we can get some more detailed information. Mr. Smook: Thank you, Mr. Minister. What is the budget for the provincial locksmith's office? Mr. Ashton : I'll get that information for the member. Mr. Smook: If the minister could also get it for the year of 2010 and 2011? Mr.

Ashton: Yes, I'll get that information. Mr. Smook : Could the minister also provide me with what the amount of dollars are being spent on outside locksmiths? Mr. Ashton : It, again, I'm not sure how often an outside locksmiths would be used, and I'll check whether that even, you know, has gone through the department. You might get cases where I assume locksmiths are brought in, you know, for outside purposes. I mean, these things do happen. I know the washroom in my office, my predecessor –this is going back to '99–got locked in the washroom when the lock failed.

You know, those heritage locks are – they're nice to look at, but I can tell you they are – they're not always all that functional. So he apparently was in there for some time, former member for Lac du Bonnet, Darren Praznik. So–and so I can get a breakdown in terms of what, you know, how much is contracted out. I believe for the –some of the new security work is outside in the Leg. Yes, again, I mean you have people that are installing specific, well, call it technology now, with the new locks. So–but I'll get a better breakdown. Mr. Smook : Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Could you tell me how often the provincial road maps are upgraded? Mr. Ashton: Funny the member should ask that. As needed, and there'll be a new one coming out very shortly. We used to really be on a one-year cycle. It's more of a two -year cycle now, the difference being that more people access highway maps on the Internet than was the case before and there are more people using GPSs. Having said that, we're almost out of maps and there'll be a new one that will be printed and distributed very shortly. Mr. Smook : Thank you, Mr.

Minister, because I know that there a lot travellers that travel through the areas; they'll ask for those maps–those. On page 75, external engineering costs : Is there a need to hire firms from the city or outside the province, or do we have enough internal staff to handle all the needs for 2012-2013? Mr. A shton: Well, we use a combination of in-house engineer expertise and consulting engineering expertise. Probably the untold story over the last number of years with our significantly increased capital budget is the degree to which our staff has stepped up t o the plate.

I rarely put on the record, by the way, the amount of work that's been done over the last couple of years, both in terms of getting our capital program able to be delivered–you know, it's nice to have the dollars, but you got to deliver it. Th ey've done a tremendous job, and a lot

May 18, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1425 of our engineering and technical staff have done a – just a incredible job on the flood-related issues. * (10:50) I also want to commend the consulting engineering committee, as well. I just had the opportunity to atte nd the awards banquet just recently.

The consulting engineering committee has stepped up to the plate very significantly over the last number of years, and through both Manitoba grads, Canadian grads, but also the –I do want to commend them as having a mode l for recognition of foreign credentials, there–many foreign -trained engineers that they have hired and, of course, there's a programming–a program with the engineering profession, through the U of M. So we have, generally speaking, been able to get expert ise both in-house and through consulting engineers from here in the province.

One I want to stress, too, by the way, is it's also a reflection of the degree that we have some of the best engineers anywhere here in the province. We have a significant expe rtise, I think, you'll find in the hydraulic area–geotechnical. But we're also –with a lot of the work now, we're getting a new crew of engineers, and many in the system for many years who are getting significant expertise, you know, in structural areas lik e, you know, bridges.

So it's kind of–it's that, you know –it's the chicken and the egg here, you know, with the expertise to a certain extent, you know, and the opportunity to practise, we're now–we're able to provide significant careers opportunities, you know, to our –to new grads or other engineers coming to the province, and–but we need them, as well, right? So, it's a good combination.

But the bottom line is most of the engineering expertise is from right here in the province, and maybe some of the firms bring in some outside specialist, but I would say, probably, 90 per cent-plus of the engineering work is done by Manitobans, which is a really good sign. Mr. Smook : Traffic engineering: How many projects are in the works for 2012-2013? Mr. Ashton: I can get the information for the member. Mr. Smook: Are there any plans to remove traffic lights on the Perimeter in order to prevent greenhouse gases? If so, when? Mr.

Ashton: In terms of the Perimeter, it's kind of – in a broader answer, we ar e looking at a number of elements on the Perimeter Highway currently and over time, which will deal with rationalizing, you know, the traffic structures, those issues raised earlier, you know, about St. Norbert bypass, various different things which are, you know, perhaps on the conceptual drawing board, if you like, down the line. And, when we do move with major projects, for safety reasons, as much as anything else, we have been also looking at rationalizing access, although that can often be an inconve nience for people affected.

And so, we are looking at some rationalization, whether it's on the Perimeter or other major parts of our highway network. The basic principle, though, with traffic lights, is we have a warrant system. If there–we meet the warrant system, which is sort of a traffic flow that are required for safety purposes–we do proceed with that.

We are very cognizant of greenhouse gases, et cetera, but the number–the bottom line here is safety, and I can probably get the member a bit of a br iefing on the Perimeter –probably might be a bit more useful than just getting him a –you know, a brief answer here, because there is a significant amount of work happening on the Perimeter, both, sort of, in the immediate sense, but also down the line, of course, there's some focus on two of the bridges on the Perimeter in the last period of time. But there's also quite a bit of other work that's been happening, some of which has been identified in Estimates.

So if the member's interested in a more general b riefing, I can provide that, as well. Mr. Smook: Thank you, Mr. Minister. What is the Churchill Gateway Development initiative? Mr. Ashton: It is the entity that is responsible for, in this case, when we talk about Churchill Gateway – Port of Churchill, and it's been in place for a number of years now. I'm trying –[interjection]–and it's key role is marketing, you know, and then–and promoting awareness of Churchill. As the member would know, we–it's a bit of a challenging period for Churchill.

On the one file with the Wheat Board, you know, losing the single desk –Wheat Board is 9 0 per cent of the grain traffic through Churchill. They've been a real, you know, significant supporter for the Port of Churchill. There's also some positive elements on the resupply to Nunavut, which has been a traditional, you know, backbone of the port as well. And we are engaged with the federal government as well, or the Prime Minister and the Premier have

1426 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2012 committed to looking at further opportunities for Churchill which, again, this gateway council will be a, you know, part of as well. But I don't want to underestimate the concern we do have for Churchill right now with the loss of the Wheat Board traffic, and we'll be continuing to promote Churchill , which is a huge asset for the province. You know, I've had the opportunity to be involved with the Russia file, for example, and the Russians, out of Murmansk have been seriously interested in marine shipping into northern Canada, particularly Churchill.

And with all the things happening climate change, it's a lot of negative things, but one of the things that is happening is the opening of the ice cap. They also have the expertise in terms of icebreakers, so I wouldn't want to underestimate the degree to which Churchill has huge potential down the line for cross -polar shipping. So this Gateway council played a key role in the past, but if anything, it's going to be playing an even more important role in the future. Mr.

Smook: Because of the significance of the P ort of Churchill, are there any plans to do any upgrading on the railway line up there or any thing to help the Port of Churchill, you know? Mr. Ashton : We did have an agreement which basically did involve upgrade to the rail line and a significant part of that has been completed. It was cost shared between the federal government, provincial government and by OmniTRAX. In fact, the total agreement was $68 million, I believe. Some of that went to the port as well, about $4 million, and the last payment actually is 2011-2012 year. So there has been a significant upgrade.

I can tell you I have met w ith the–with VIA Rail and it has resulted in what is probably the most important thing is the ability to actually remove some of the speed restrictions on the rail line. And that is important both for –obviously for freight, but also for significant passeng er traffic takes place. So we have been upgrading the rail line. Mr. Smook: Mr. Minister, auto dealer and salesmen permits: What is the current number issued and how does that compare to in the last four years? Mr. Ashton: I'll track that information dow n for the member. Mr. Smook: Mr.

Minister, spring road restrictions: How many officers work in this department and what was the dollar figure of –collected for overweight restriction? Mr. Ashton : I will get the detailed information as well. Mr. Smook : Government air services: Does the current budget reflect the 2.5 cent per litre fuel tax, and is it reflected in the budget in Estimates? Mr. Ashton : The current budget reflects all the anticipated costs, et cetera, and I can give the member a breakdown if he's interested in the kind of costs that are attached.

Obviously, we do have costs related to landing fees, for example, the various other elements in the system, but if the member is interested in a more detailed breakdown, I can provide that as well. Mr. Smook : Thank you, Mr. Minister. Could you describe to me the 50 -50 municipal roads program and what projects are on the table? * (11:00) Mr. Ashton : Yes, the –with the 50 -50 program, I can give the member some indication of the –what happened in the past year.

And I can also indicate that the responsibility for the 50-50 program has now been moved to Local Government, so they could provide background on–in terms of the upcoming year. Again, this is a program that's been in place a number of years, working directly with municipalities. But, if the member's interested in some of the information in the past year, we can provide that. Mr. Smook : Thank you, Mr. Minister. I'm now going to turn it over to the Honourable Jon Gerrard. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Thank you, and let me start out with a question around Lake Manitoba.

The –since 2003, the lake level has been managed between 810.5 and 812.5 with a view that it would occasionally go down to 810 and occasionally go up to 813. The –is that–that' s the minister's understanding as well. Is that correct? Mr. Ashton : There's a range that was set in our report that came in 2003. And again, I mean, you know, there's been some fluctuation over that period of time. It reflected really the experience from the early '60s on. But there is a range that was established in that report which really applied, you know, from '60, well, early '60s, '61, through to last year.

May 18, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1427 Mr. Gerrard: Yes, and the government fully accepted the report of 2003, which recommended that that be where the lake level was managed for. Mr. Ashton: The report was accepted 2003. It was–I was the Minister of Conservation at the time , and I can tell you it was probably one of the more controversial issues I dealt with, if not the most controversial. There was a lot of disagreement up and down the lake. And that report was accepted and it reflected the –what had been the experience really since '61, I believe, when the Fairford opened.

Of course, prior to 1961, the level on Lake Manitoba was at flood level, you know, for an extended period of time. So we had a, you know, pre -'61 situation. But that report was accepted in 2003 as the targeted range, yes. Mr. Gerrard: One of the people who is –who I've talked with about the flood says that the outlet at the Fairford, going just before the Fairford Dam, because of the silt buildup, that he's been told by Steve Topping that the water could never get down to 810.5 because of that silt or for other reasons around the Fairford dam. Is that correct? Mr.

Ashton: I did actually address this earlier during Estimates. We, yes, there's some silting around the Fairford structure. There was some talk–I don't know if it–we got beyond that in 2006, I believe, when the level of Lake Manitoba was quite low, i n terms of removing that silt. Of course, everything–anything and everything that could potentially be done has to reflect both the feasibility but also potential environmental issues, including with DFO.

And I would anticipate that this'll be one of the issues again that will be looked at in the consideration of the report that we'll be getting back on flood mitigation issues is whether anything can be done in that nature. I do want to stress that, you know, we did look very significantly. For example, the –some of the silting stayed place in the Assiniboine in, you know, going back to 2011. And a lot of it really is looking at the feasibility. We thought it wasn't particularly feasible, very expensive–again, not even getting into the environmental issues on the Assiniboine.

And a lot of it, really, it depends on the level, you know, whether sediment would impact. You know, it depends on the level of flow. But I'm fully anticipating this will be one of the issues that will be addressed in that report, whether there's anything that can or should be done in terms of that sediment. Mr. Gerrard: Is the statement correct or not correct that the water would have trouble getting down to the 810.5 level because of the sediment deposited in front of that dam? Mr. Ashton : Approximately in that range. You know, that's –the member is correct. It's approximately in that range.

I mean, it's –you know, whether it's 810.5 or 810.6, that's the point at which there is some impediment, yes. Mr. Gerrard: So the water could flow down to 10.6, 10.5, but not below. Is that what you're saying? Mr. Ashton: Again, it would be –I'm advised it'd be an impediment at lower levels, in and around that range, but wouldn't necessarily restrict flow, but it is an impediment in and around the lower level, 810.5. Mr. Gerrard: Okay. Thank you. Now, on Lake St. Martin, from the minister's comments, it's my understanding that the goal is to be able to balance flow into Lake St.

Martin with the flow out of Lake St. Martin so t hat you can maintain in the future the level of Lake St. Martin in a–well, in the desired range, without having it go up as high as it did this year. Is that correct? Mr. Ashton : Just on–just one further bit of information, by the way, on the 810.5. Obvi ously, the lake level can and will go below 810.5 through– due to other processes, you know, like evaporation. There's significant amount of evaporation last year, for example, that, in addition to the outlet, made a difference on the lake levels. But the key issue of Lake Manitoba is Lake St. Martin.

The member is quite correct. You essentially –if you look at what happened this–the history of Lake Manitoba, Lake St. Martin– 1961, the Fairford Dam would be, what, 1970, I believe, '71, the Portage Diversion inlet and outlet from Lake Manitoba, but no artificial outlet from Lake St. Martin. Was examined in 1978 by the Water Commission, was rejected. I comment on the record on–in Estimates, a lot of that was to do with, probably, a very different scenario in terms of cost-benefit around the lake at the time.

And what we identified for the emergency outlet was, again, the need to ensure that whatever happened out of Lake Manitoba, you know, was not exacerbating the situation on Lake St. Martin.

1428 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2012 So what it rea lly comes down to is, as the member saw, we moved to the outlet. It allows – allowed us to use the Fairford structure to its maximum physical capacity without having to restrict it, particularly in the winter. And it all comes down to that balance of what goes out of Lake Manitoba–and, in fact, I had to put on record the current flows and some of the flows over the last few months–and Lake St. Martin, they're interconnected. And at this time, we're getting –and we did go through some detailed questions in terms of this–it is spring runoff.

It's –flows have increased generally into, you know, lake martin from some of the –Lake St. Martin and –to Lake Manitoba from some of the tributaries. Particularly, you know, the Waterhen has been at historic high levels, you know, with inflows over the last period of time. So, the bottom line really is, again, we were able to significantly increase the outflows at lake –you know, through Lake St. Martin. And I'm anticipating, again, this report –the two reports, actually, will also address the issues of both the physical infrastructure but also the actual regulatory range itself.

I mean, the one report we're going to get back will clearly establish, you know, recommendation on that regulatory range that was adopted in 2003. * (11:10) Mr. Gerrard: The minister's talked all the way around, but just a clear answer to the question–the goal, as I understand it, of the minister is to be able to balance the outflow with the input into Lake St. Martin so that you won't get these high peak levels that we saw this year. Is that right? Mr. Ashton: Yes, generally speaking, that's correct.

Of course, flows do vary throughout the year; you know, there's the spring runoff so you will get times where there's greater or lesser flow. That's j ust the reality of what you're dealing with, but again, you–there are various elements in the flood control system that do allow some balance for that. If you look at the Shellmouth, for example –you know, so water retention in that particular case. But the key issue was, and continues to be, with this outlet, the ability to get an –the artificial outlet out of Lake St.

Martin, because we had a–you know, the inlet and the outlet for Lake Manitoba but no artificial outlet, just the natural outlet. So that is the goal, yes, to get –and, in fact, we did that during the flood situation. We were able to get significant additional flows out of Lake St. Martin. So the member's quite correct; that's the balance we needed. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, now, the minister has indic ated that the general goal is to be able to have the flow out of Lake St. Martin balancing the flow in so that you don't have extremely high levels.

My assumption, but maybe I'm wrong, is that the minister would also like, particularly in the case of the P ortage Diversion, because it's, you know, an artificial not a natural flow into the Portage –into– from the Assiniboine to Lake Manitoba, to be able to balance, at a minimum, the extra flow coming through the Portage Diversion, with the ability to have that flow go all the way through Lake St. Martin to Lake Winnipeg an equivalent rate. Is that correct? Mr.

Ashton : Again, these are issues that will be addressed by the –you know, the task force on mitigation, which will look at the whole system, and indirectly by the–you know, through the report we're going to get back on the regulatory level. The key issue on my mind with the Portage Diversion is support and recognize that the –there was a natural inflow into Lake Manitoba when there's been historic flooding levels, I believe in what, the 1890s? [interjection] 1892 to be exact. So, you know, in historic flood levels we've seen that there is a natural inflow into Lake Manitoba.

The key challenge of Lake Manitoba, and again, this will be addressed by the task f orce–it's a very–it's a big lake but it's a very shallow lake, as everybody's aware. And again, I mean, we had a flood system and a regulatory regime that essentially worked from '61 to 2011. It didn't work in 2011, and that's where the considerations of t hese two reports will, I think, address. I mean, the one is the target level, the regulatory level. And the second is, obviously, how do we manage it, and are there other options out there that we can look at?

I do want to stress, though, again–and I know the member has, you know, stated that in his question– Lake Manitoba is interconnected with Lake St. Martin. You know, the –you can't fix the problem on one lake without fixing the problem on the other lake. That's what we did in 2011; we had something that benefited both lakes, and again, that will –I assume, will be a very significant part of the recommendations. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, I mean, even if you take away the potential, relatively small, comparably, flow which has occurred, and you referred to 1892–fl ow

May 18, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1429 from the Assiniboine to Lake St. Martin relatively small compared to what goes through the Portage Diversion. Even if you decided to balance, right, the flow through the Portage Diversion minus that flow which has occurred on occasion, historically, from the Assiniboine to Lake Manitoba, it would seem to me that one must have a goal of trying to be able to balance that additional new flow, which is due solely to the presence of the Portage Diversion, with the capacity to be able to put that water through Lake St. Martin to Lake Winnipeg.

You know, are we on the same page? Or is the minister in a completely different space here? Mr. Ashton: Well, first of all, there were significant natural inflows ranging up to 20,000 cfs. The Waterhen, in particular, has been at unprecedented levels. So there was a significant natural inflow. The second point that's really important to raise, as well, and I think this is again something that we should also keep in mind–prior to the construction of the Fairford struc ture and outlet in 1961, there was very significant historic flooding in the 1950s on Lake Manitoba.

So, with no Portage Diversion and no Fairford structure, no Shellmouth Dam, there was major, in fact, chronic flooding in the '50s. What happened in the '60s is you had first the outlet built and the inlet built and the one thing that was not done, and I've already stated this but I want to restate, was not having an enhancement of the outflow of Lake St. Martin. That, to our mind, is the key element to be addressed by a lot of this review, and we did it on an emergency basis, but do we need this on an ongoing basis that's–in fact, just to –and I've got the specific numbers.

In the 1950s , Lake Manitoba was above 814 feet for three years. Okay, so, if you put it in context, what would be considered flood level today, for three years we had flooding levels on Lake Manitoba. And that really leads to, I think, a broader sense of the fact th at we have a flood system that worked.

It was overwhelmed by historic flooding, and when I say historic flooding–when you're dealing with a flood of one in 300 hundred years on the Assiniboine–actually one in 350 years is probably where the Souris meets th e Assiniboine so if you look at the historic levels on that watershed, it was a very historic flood on Lake Manitoba. I think we're considering in the range of one -in-400-year flood on Lake Manitoba, if not, you know, greater scale. So what it comes down to is, is we've already made a significant improvement and we're looking to the report to see if there are other ways we can do it.

Nothing is being ruled out. Quite frankly, there's a lot of other suggestions have been made. I can tell you from our scrut iny last year, a lot of what are the simple solutions aren't that simple when you look at the actual impacts. Some of them are very expensive; some of them don't provide much relief. But we have an independent review –we're allowing them to do the technic al work, and I fully anticipate they will be addressing exactly the point that the member's, you know, raising is –are there other ways of enhancing the outflow from Lake Manitoba and Lake St.

Martin or are there other ways of managing the inflows in histor ic flooding situations? Mr. Gerrard: Yes, the –I think it's important to clarify this a little further because, you know, I remember when the minister and I and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McFadyen) flew along the Assiniboine River and we were over t he Portage Diversion. And I thank the minister for that opportunity in the spring of 2011 to see what was happening with the flood.

But I distinctly remember that the minister commented that the flow through the Portage Diversion was almost irrelevant in terms of contributing to the lake level on Lake Manitoba, and yet, you know, detailed analysis has shown that that's clearly not the case–that the –probably 70 to 80 per cent of the rise in the level–and it wasn't 814, it was up to close to 818–was due to the impact of the Portage Diversion. That analysis was made by one of the senior flood forecasters in the minister's department and has been circulated.

And it's been corroborated by analyses done by others. * (11:20) So, I mean, we're dealing with a situation where the Portage Diversion is making a major contribution under circumstances like the 2011 flood, to the level of Lake Manitoba. And, clearly, that needs to be acknowledged, and as I can see it, then, that being the case, that there needs to be some ability to be able to move additional water when you've got the Portage Diversion running full tilt, as it was fuller

1430 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2012 than full tilt, actually, in 2011, to be able to move more water from Lake Manitoba to Lake Winnipeg. Mr. Ashton: I believe the flood where we did was in April, which is prior to the extended rainfall we had in May, prior to the third crest on the Souris, prior to the surge of water that we dealt with in that extended period throughout the entire Assi niboine River system and prior to the continued flows that we also had from the natural 'tributories', which were, again, impacted by the significant rain, not just here in Manitoba, but throughout the watershed.

So, early on, the level of the lake was be ing influenced by other factors in addition to the Portage Diversion. There's no doubt that that overflow over time was very significant, and, for example, the actual volume over time by the Waterhen and other tributaries was–notwithstanding all the flows in the Portage Diversion, was about two-thirds. We had record high natural inflows, and that's not to say there wasn't record flows on the Portage Diversion, but it was not –in fact, the majority of the flow through Lake Manitoba was –two-thirds of it, was from natural inflows.

I'm talking about what would have happened, no matter what. Without Portage Diversion, you would've seen those very significant flows. So that's the key point. When we went up in April, it was early on. Traditionally, by the way, the Portage Diversion, in a normal year, is operated for, you know, a relatively short period of time, if it's operated at all. It's one of the three major components of our system. You also have the Shellmouth, which does hold back a significant amount of wa ter. And the Shellmouth was a huge factor in flood management this time, as the member knows.

And I can tell you that the [inaudible] between the Shellmouth and the Portage Diversion, it was that continued massive inflow of precipitation and massive inflow of water through the watershed all the way through, really until August, you know, in terms of –well, July -August, in terms of rainfall, but it's continued high flows even beyond that that led to the historic flooding on Lake Manitoba. And I'm sure one of the key issues that these – that this report will address is to what degree we can manage the system better, but it's not necessarily going to be through the outlet alone.

I think probably the bigger question, as well, in addition to, sort of, looking at i s–are there other outlets? Is our –you know, is there a need to manage the lake differently– you know, to manage it at a lower level over time? There are people around the lake that would like to see that. There are other people that, historically, have opposed maintaining the lake level too low because there are users around the lake that could be significantly negatively impacted by that. Quite frankly, same thing in Lake St. Martin, as well, there is potential impacts in terms of fisheries.

But those are the kind of questions we're looking to this independent advice. We do have our analysis of what happened this year. They obviously have got all the technical expertise they need to do that, to analyze it. But, the outlet, yes, that's part of, obviously, what I'm expecting to look at, but I'm assuming they'll look at other factors too, such as retention and the actual management regime of the two lakes. Mr. Gerrard: I have a little bit of advice to the minister.

I don't dispute the contribution of natural flows, but what happens when you've got water flows, it's the last 10 or 20 per cent which do most of the damage, right? When you've got peak flows, because those give you the –normally, the highest flow rates, but–and those areas where you've got the highest levels. Now, in the date that we were flying over was in the first two weeks in May. It was at a time when we were there because the Hoop and Holler cut was being considered, or maybe was already just made, actually, and the –when we flew over the Portage Diversion, it was right up to the brim.

It was flowing close to its maximum amount, and I think that the minister does himself a disservice by not recognizing that there was an artificial contribution to this flood from the water going through the Porta ge Diversion. And as long as the minister keeps on forgetting about that and talking around it and not directly acknowledging it, then he is completely offside with a large, large number of people around Lake Manitoba.

And that it would be far better for the minister to take some time if the minister wants, but to acknowledge that there is and was a major contribution through the Portage Diversion, and – instead of skating around and talking about every other source for the water. That when you're talking about a situation where, yes, the first two -thirds–you know, I don't have the precise calculations here –may have been natural flows, but, because you have the capacity naturally to deal with a certain level of significant flows down the Fairford River and out into Lake Manitoba, that last contribution, well, the

May 18, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1431 last third, is the third which –you know, which is the most problematic third. Because that's the third which causes the most trouble, because there's no ability to compensate for that by being able t o, you know, move that on the next step. Now, in terms of the ability to get water from Lake Manitoba to Lake Winnipeg, you know, obviously what has been addressed so far is the flow from Lake St. Martin to Lake Winnipeg, right, and that's been enhanced with reach 3 and reach 1. I understand reach 3 is near completion but not actually in use.

And there have been at least two major proposals in terms of where water could flow to supplement the flow from Lake Manitoba to Lake St. Martin. One of those is thi s channel going just north of the Fairford Dam, and the other is a channel from Watchorn Bay through Birch Creek on Lake St. Martin.

You know, I was at a meeting quite recently, I think it was Tuesday evening this week, where this was discussed by the fl ood rehabilitation committee for Lake Manitoba, and the –there was a lot of concern about the route just north of the Fairford River and the Fairford Dam because of the potential to cause increasing problems around Lake Pineimuta; but there was a lot of enthusiasm and support for the channel from Watchorn Bay to Birch Creek on Lake St. Martin. Perhaps, I could ask the minister the current status of their assessment of these two options. Mr.

Ashton : Well, on the broader question the member raised in terms o f artificial flooding, we have considerable experience in terms of what is artificial flooding from the Red River. When you look at what is artificial flooding, there is actually

definitions in the act. We also have it now, you know, in terms of Shellmouth. What you do is you look at all of the elements in the flood control system, what would happen without those flood control elements. * (11:30) So for example, the Red River–city of Winnipeg, in this area –it's–yes, it's the floodway, but it's also the Po rtage Diversion and it's also the Shellmouth Dam. The three components combined are the key elements of the vision that came out of the major flooding in the 1950s and the action that was taken in the '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s.

When you're looking at Lake Manitoba, Lake Manitoba had an artificial outlet with a controlled structure essentially, built in 1961, opened in 1961. I mentioned before –in the 1950s there was flooding for three years, 814 feet above flood level. So , when you're looking at that, when you're looking at, as I said, I've identified the thing that was not moved on was the–an outlet on Lake St. Martin which was bit of a restriction. But prior to the opening of the Portage Diversion there was, well, you know, an artificial channel. There was also, you know, the opening of the Fairford.

So all of these issues and, you know, the holdback in the Shellmouth, it's no different when we look at the Red River Valley or in around the Shellmouth area. There's a whole definition of what's artificial flooding, and you have to also include the fact that in a one -in-a-400-year flood, if we saw flooding in 1892 that flowed naturally into Lake Manitoba, there's every indication you would have seen a natural inflow this year. And I want to stress one thing, by the way. An uncontrolled natural breakout of the Assiniboine River would have been disastrous last year downstream from Portage.

It would have had devastating impacts in terms of the valley. But I can tell you also, with the Portage Diversion itself, I couldn't begin to picture what would happen without the Portage Diversion, if we had an actual outbreak from the Assiniboine River to similar to 1892. And we do have the patterns, we do have the –you know, there was a steamboat that went from the Assiniboine River into Lake Manitoba. So the general principle here is you're better off to control it, and that was the logic behind the Hoop and Holler.

Control it –that was the logic behind trying to keep the Assiniboine dikes, keep the integrity. And , quite fra nkly, even with Lake Manitoba, compare it to the 1950s, we have controls. Now the system was overwhelmed between 1961, you know, and 2011, it worked. But it was overwhelmed last year. It's not much different, by the way, with the regime in the Red River V alley in 1997. In 1997 we came that close to having our flood protection systems overwhelmed in the city of Winnipeg. Now, I wasn't the minister; I wasn't in government.

But I know the member was in, in part of the federal government at the time, and would have been probably even more directly, you know, briefed than I was at the time. And what it was, it was a combination of 100-year flood and a one -in-10,000-year wind event. It's very similar, by the way, to what happened in

1432 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2012 Lake Manitoba last year. The biggest damage around Lake Manitoba was the combination of lake levels and, of course, the windstorm in May, prior to actually the real peak levels, you know, the –that we saw. So what happened out of '97, we then assessed what we needed to do to improve things in the future. We now have the dikes; we now have the floodway expansion. I was minister responsible of that for a considerable period of time. My deputy was actually part of the –one of the key players, technically, in terms of that.

It's sort of w hat we're doing now with Lake Manitoba. We're recognizing there was a system that included artificial inlet, an artificial outlet from Lake Manitoba and an artificial inlet into Lake St. Martin and no artificial outlet from Lake St. Martin. So we're going back to the drawing boards. We have this report that will make series of recommendations, and our goal is to improve things significantly in the future.

But I do think it's important to put on the record two things: one is without any of the artificial elements, with much lesser pressures on the tributaries in the 1950s, we had flooding for three years. So you can't net out some of the enhancements to flood protection and only–you can't just talk about only the inlet, you've got to talk about the outlet as well, if you're talking about sort of the more esoteric elements of artificial flooding. What we did though, is last year we recognized it was very significant flooding, and it was a unique situation.

And I'll tell you one thing: Regardless of this debate over was it artificial or not, and I respect flood victims. The No. 1 rule I've got is flood victims have entitlement to say whatever they want, whatever they feel is right. Not every flood victim agrees with every other flood victim, but you respect that. So people say it's artificial flooding; they believe it's artificial flooding. I respect that.

But what we did say is people built around the lake historically but, particularly, a lot of development took place between '61 and 2011 based on the, you know, good faith, based on the regulatory regime, based on the building codes that were in place. It's no different than the Red River Valley pre-'97. And that may change and we've got the – interim policies are in place, you know, for the rebuilding. But we put in unprecedented programming that goes beyond DFA that reflects some of the damages faced by cottage owners.

Compensation, by the way, that's not available to similar situations elsewhere in the province, and I know that's a concern. I hear it at Lake Dauphin, et cetera. But it was very much based on that basic principle. So we can get into a debate about what is artificial, what isn't artificial flooding. There's technical analysis that looks at that. I do point out, by the way, that –and quite apar t from all of this, you know, the flooding didn't just start at Manitoba because somebody pressed a switch, okay. The flooding was cross base. Minot was devastated by flooding; 3,100 homes devastated on the Souris.

There was very significant flooding in Saskatchewan. And I was recently at the federal-provincial ministers meetings for Emergency Measures ministers, and in Manitoba we got hit harder on the broader scale, but they had some pretty devastating damage to affected communities. So there was a massive event. And we will look at all of the technical issues. We will have a full report; we do after every flood. And we'll look at all the elements of the decisions that were made or not made.

And I want to stress, that quite apart from this debate on what is artificial flooding and what isn't artificial flooding, it's quite legitimate to get into that. I will put on the record that I do believe that our staff and I expect–I accept responsibility as minister. So, collectively, we had historic flooding. W e had dealt with a lot of challenges and a number of moves were made that I think made a dramatic difference. Was there damage? Yes. But was there significant mitigation of that? Absolutely, not the least of which is the outlet. Now, on the issue of further outlets from Lake Manitoba, Lake St.

Martin, we've identified some of the options through the engineering work that was done last year. We've not ruled out a further outlet. There's a number of options there. Again, it all comes down to Lake St. Mart in. Without the ability to move additional water out of Lake St. Martin, you end up potentially decreasing levels on Lake Manitoba at the expense of Lake St. Martin, but we can't and we won't do that. I'm fully anticipating that this will be one of the key issues that the –both reports will look at, but particularly the report on flood management.

And I don't what to just assume, by the way, that's the only

May 18, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1433 option. I'm anticipating they'll look at any and every option. And I remind everyone, by the way, in '97 with the follow-up to the flood there, the IJC report that came out –it was KGS that did the report–it's amazing, actually, how people forget –wasn't a one-option report. They also had a further option of a significant diversion that didn't get into a floodway enhancement. That was rejected, okay. I'm fully anticipating that will be the case here, as well. We may get a series of options identified.

But, again , when you have independent processes you let them do that work. They're going to have full public hearings, and we haven't ruled it out as a government, but we're looking to this report and the technical work associated with it. And the hearings, you know, with the effect –members of the public to come back with that the –according to what we did after '97, which is the next generation of flood mitigation for the province of Manitoba. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, one of the issues in relationship to the Lake St. Martin channel going from Lake St.

Martin to Big Buffalo Lake and reach 3 is that these are emergency structures, it's my understanding, that they either have to be taken down or licensed. Are you look–is the minister looking for a recommendation from the revie w committees as to which route should be taken? * (11:40) Mr. Ashton : Yes, I did mention this earlier, you know, in a similar question, but we certainly would be looking very much to their advice in terms of that. And the key element, by the way, with the outlet that was constructed last year, it's a very simple process of closing it off.

It would be a very simple process of opening up again in the case of emergency. The real question would become: Do you put in permanent structures? And do you go through all the, you know, the licensing and the various capital elements that will go with that? I'm anticipating that would be one of the key areas that they will make recommendation on. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, one of the people who spoke up fairly passionately a t the meeting on Tuesday night was Matthew Traverse, who's the flood co -ordinator for Lake St. Martin. And he spoke passionately for, and others did as well, for the option of relocating Lake St.

Martin to the east –the community to the east side of Lake St . Martin where, apparently, there's higher ground. Is that an option which is still on the table? Mr.

Ashton: The–as the member knows, and I know he's met with First Nations in the area, and he's got a fair amount of experience in that area, in his previous life as well, which he gets reminded of on occasion in the House, but the whole concept of higher ground strategy has always been something that has been considered by the First Nations in that area, and I'm fully anticipating again in respecting, obviously, the First Nations and, you know, self -governing entities there–their desire in that particular case that that will be considered. By the way, in post '97, that's –that was one of the elements.

We didn't just build dikes. There were homes that were either bought out or relocated, so I'm fully anticipating that will be a part of it as well. What I do want to put on the record, though, i s the degree to which the First Nations in and around Lake St. Martin –and I know there's some issues with various aspects of the flood and I respect that–but the degree to which they really became part of a solution was not only a solution for their communities, but also for the communities in and around Lake Manitoba should be noted.

And I think that's going to be one of the key things in the goal, for whatever happens has to be both, Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin. We cannot have something that makes things worse for one or the other. And with its high ground or any of the other potential options that have been identified, again, those are issues that I am sure will be addressed in this follow -up, both by the report but also by the First Nations themselves. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, in the Hansard record of the answer–minister's answer to the question of the breakdown of the $100 million cost of the channel from Lake St.

Martin to Big Buffalo Lake, it appears in the Hansard transcript that $60 million of that went for consultation and community, I forget exactly what the word was, enhancement, for the First Nations communities. I'm just trying to –I want to ask the minister. Is that a correct

interpretation of what was in Hansar d or did the minister say something different? Mr. Ashton : Yes, I could –I could read the information back in Hansard, but I think the member's correct in the fact that what I did indicate very clearly, and we've been very clear from day one that the total budgeting costs we had initiall y did

1434 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2012 include all the rate of costs when dealing with First Nations. It is the constitutional right to, you know, constant duty to consult. We obviously respected that. We also felt it was very important to maximize the participation by the flood -affected communities on the construction phase, and it's reflected.

The community benefits agreement itself is $16 million, but the member's quite correct, the, you know, the total cost figure we reference, and I put the details on the record, is not just a physi cal construction cost; it deals with all the interrelated costs of the project. Mr. Gerrard: The transcript says, community benefits and consultation, $60 million. So maybe the correction should be that that's $16 million. Is that what the minister is saying? Mr. Ashton : I give the member credit. I have not checked the Hansard but, yes, he's correct, so I appreciate him correcting the record on that.

I'm not blaming Hansard here, by the way. This is rather different for me, but I've been told a number of times that I've been speaking too softly and Hansard can't pick up my comments. That's not usually the situation in the House, so I'm sure that must have been the case so I expect –I accept responsibility for that. Mr. Gerrard: You know, this –to make this absolutely clear –I wanted to make this absolutely clear so that, you know, the $60-million figure which was in Hansard was not going to be used erroneously. Okay.

The minister has talked about one in 3,000 – sorry, one -in-10,000-year wind event, and from the minister's comments today, it looks like that was a reference to the flood of 1997 and not to the flood of this year. You know, it was not a reference to the fact that the wind event on Lake Manitoba was a one-in-10,000 wind e vent. I don't think that anybody's saying that. Is that correct? Mr.

Ashton: I was referring to '97 but the –there is the other element though that –you know, the significant damage that occurred in May was partly due to lake levels but also the very signif icant windstorm that took–did take place. Now, windstorms are not unique around the lake, but it was a very significant one, and I – [interjection] Yes, what was particularly unique was for spring.

You know, it's not unusual in the fall and again, the honourable member knows Lake Manitoba quite well, but that was the reference I made again, too, which is even if you look at lake levels, it's a combination of lake level plus wind action. It's no different on Lake Winnipeg as well with some of the major events we've seen. You know, you can't just look at the lake level. And, again, when we look at the future of flood mitigation and at rebuilding and the level at which people will rebuild to, we have to take into account not only the lake level but lake setup and potential impact from wind and wave. Mr.

Gerrard: Most people are focused on the, I believe it was May the 31st wind which caused so much trouble around Twin beach and St. Laurent, but it's my understanding that, you know, two or three or four days before that, there was a wind event which affected places like Big Point on the other side and that there were really two wind events, you know, which were not far apart, but both of which had significant impact, and I, you know, from my understanding at least, that's something that needs to be taken into consideration. Is that the minister's understanding as well? Mr.

Ashton : Yes, I believe the member's correct. There was –it was a series of wind events over a series of days. I had the opportunity to visit in and around the lake right around that time as well, so it actually did vary according to different parts of the lake. And it's also–as the member knows, there's some parts of the lake are more vulnerable to wind events, flooding generally, not just becaus e of elevation but because of the –the actual setup impacts–it's no different than Lake Winnipeg actually, you know, so the north basin, south basin– so that did have a differential impact around the lake.

There were a number of events. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, I w ant to ask a couple of questions about the g eotubes which were put up in– well, in Woodlands area, pieces of St. Laurent, and it's my understanding that the –those geotubes have actually done reasonably well in surviving the winter and actually as being a, you know, a place where you get natural buildup of a berm, because when the waves come in, they tend to deposit sand and larger pieces.

So has the minister done any work to have a look at this, you know, and to assess the impact of the geotubes and to unde rstand how well they worked or not, and that information that can be used well in the future or even right now? * (11:50)

May 18, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1435 Mr. Ashton: Yes, in a general sense, I can tell you we are doing the assessment right now on what happened. The consultants will be looking at that. A lot of what did happen was what we anticipated. There was a fair degree of success in the fall related to waves. Most of the damage, not all of it, would have been from ice.

It was not –well, unfortunately, it was –we had some good developments with lake levels over the winter, both due to the lack of precipitation in the outlet and we didn't face some of the challenging ice conditions we often face in around Lake Manitoba in the spring. So, you know, it–the damage is there. It could have been a lot worse, and we will be assessing it. I can say, by the way, just in a general sense, over the last number of years that what we have done is we have moved fairly significantly to use a variety of products.

Obviously, we still use sandbags, super sandbags, brought in–simply enhancement of our ability to put sandbags in place with the sandbag machines last year. But whether it's the Tiger tubes, we used a few of the Aqua Dams as well, you know, on a trial basis, we've tried HESCO products as well, and, of course, this particular product, what is interesting is, you know, what was probably fairly new even 10 years ago has now become a –quite an industry in as of itself.

And I think what it is , is it's a reflection of the degree to which these produc ts aren't necessarily replacements for dikes or, you know, sandbag dikes but are, you know, are supplements to and, you know, where used appropriately can make a difference. So that was the case with these products from our initial departmental analysis, certainly has been the case with the Tiger tubes, which we've used fairly extensively in various different situations.

And we're obviously going to be assessing some of the experience with the HESCO product this year, you know, because we used–or used it fairly–for the first time in 2011. That's what we do with any of these products. We assess them, not just based on the manufacturing specifications but on the reality on the ground. And certainly, whether it's Tiger tubes or these products, they have proved to be somewhat valuable. And we did get the approvals, which is advised as well, with DFO, and, you know, some –so that is an issue we were cognizant as well, is to sort of minimize the impacts on the environment.

I do know one of the issues that, you know, has been raised is sort of, why not use cement? And, again, a lot of cases when we're dealing with water quality issues, we have to be careful of what may be a good structural product but can also have impact on water quality in the area. So, general sense, they perform probably as well as, if not better than, was expected. But we'll get the final report and make our decisions on future deployment, I think, based on the full report. Mr. Gerrard: The initial plan for rolling out geotubes wa s not completed. There's still lots of areas in St.

Laurent and there may be other areas around the lake where there could be benefit. Is there any consideration or would there be any consideration to complete it and that if the municipality or another municipality felt that was desirable? Mr. Ashton: Well, the key thing here is they were deployed on a one-time use basis. So you're then into recognizing that if they are used you've got the cost, and I can get the exact cost if the member's interested. So that's my 'analysment'. I mean, the key thing now is that the lake level's come down significantly.

We're going to be below regulatory level by, well, before the end of this year if current trends continue, so the pressures aren't there. But, again, w e're going to go with our thorough review of what the experience was with the products, although the first indication is that they were useful, probably exceeded expectations. Mr. Gerrard: The–I mean, most people are cognizant of the fact that we're still close to a foot above the upper end of the range of 12.5 and that there are, you know, ongoing risks or concerns.

In fact, it's my understanding that even quite recently with the recent wind there were some properties which were significantly affected. And , I mean, while it may seem, you know, right, that we're completely out of the woods, that, you know, hey, particularly if there was another rainstorm it would be an issue. And, if these geotubes were put in place in part to help build up or rebuild the be rms in many areas which have been degraded because of the situation, then it might be something which could be looked at.

And so I think that what I would suggest to the minister is that in the assessment, that it be an assessment not only of how well they've performed,

1436 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2012 but of whether and when they might be used in the future. Mr. Ashton: I appreciate the advice, and just for the information of the member, the current level is 813.35. We are anticipating with the current forecast that we will hit 812.5, within the regulatory range by November 1st and, certainly, a big difference from late last year. That's the most important th ing for people around the lake. [interjection] Then, actually, I'm also advised that, again, it's not uncommon to be above 813.

Since 1961 this is – since regulation, we've been above 813 feet at least 10 times. So I wouldn't want the impression to be created that the regulatory regime was always achieved. It was always the operating target and, you know, again, the member referenced the 2003 report before, but we've been above 813 feet 10 times since 1961. So what you're seeing now is more, I would say normal. Normal, obviously, is below the 812.5, but it's not an unusual lake level.

Last year it was a highly unusual lake level and, of course, when you consider that prior to '61, with the opening at Fairford, we were at 814 -plus for three years. It really does put in perspective that we're below what, you know, was sort of the preregulation flood level which is 814 feet. But I'm not going to get in what is the flood level until we get back to the regulatory level. It's not much of a consolation if people, particularly if they've been impacted by flooding last year, that, you know, it doesn't really matter what the definition of flood level is till we get back to the normal level.

It– you know, that's the goal. Mr. Gerrard: Yes. Since 2003, when that report was there, how many times has the level been below 810? Mr. Ashton : Yes. I could track that information down. And I appreciat e the member asking the question because there, you know, there are times when the big concern around Lake Manitoba has been lack of water. It's hard to believe after the last year, but we even had a dry spell 2006, if I recall correctly, and there were very real concerns. It's also one of the issues with the regulatory level.

You know, there would be significant impacts if you reduce the lake level dramatically below its current regulatory minimum. And I, you know, I could just mention–well, fisheries, y ou know, impacts, for example. Because I know back in 2003, that was one of the big issues, was, you know, the concern with fisheries both in Lake St. Martin, as well, by the way, and Lake Manitoba. Too low a level, you have negative impacts on the fishery , but there's also other users around the lake that traditionally have wanted a higher lake level. Mr. Gerrard: Yes.

I mean, the part of the point of asking this question–and I will wait for the answer which the minister will provide in due course –but is this: that there needs to be for the lake to operate some fluctuation, and that when the level is down that there is a natural, sort of, healing of some of the damage which was done at very high levels, and that is a buildup of the berms, a buildup of the sand and that buildup is then very important in mitigating problems at higher level, because if you've eroded a lot of that, the berm and the –you know, the sand, which is near the shore, which is –builds up at low levels, then you've got much less protection. * (12:00) And there's, you know, a fairly strong argument being made that in the period from 2003, all right, after that report, that the level has tended to be maintained up toward the upper end of the range, and that it hasn't gone down to the 210 or even 210.5 or maybe even 211.

I don't know, precisely, the answer, but I would look forward to the information from the minister. And that in terms of cycling through, let me give you an example if I can find it. Here it is, and this is the response of the minister on Hansard. That, you know, once the levels –essentially, as I interpret this response, once the level leach –reaches 812.5 on Lake Manitoba that the minister will assume that everything is just fine and no more needs to be done.

And many would argue that the lake would actually benefit from a period of lower levels, down at the 810.5, 811 range for some time to allow, as it were, for natural, you know, healing of the lake, and also allow for, you know, a time when people around the lake can breathe a little easier for a short spell.

Now, I –you know, I would ask the minister to comment on the view, which I think was part of the original 2003 report, that you needed to have this fluctuation between 10.5 and twelve point–810.5 and 812.5 for the optimum situation of the lake, but it seems from how the lake was managed that this was never achieved. So I let the minister have a chance to comment. Thank you. Mr. Ashton: First thing I want to stress, by the way, you know, the operation of the emergency channel, it is based on the fact it's an emergency situation,

May 18, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1437 which allowed us to expedite it. And, obviously, with that channel, it–we would operate it under 'circumstes' up to and including when we hit the regulatory range maximum, so that –you know, where we do not have the ability to use it for normal management this point in time. This will be one of the areas that will be addressed by the two reports, and, certainly, we'll make decisions accordingly down the line.

You know, whether we need to put in a physical infrastructure or go through the environmental licensing to operate it on a, you know, more active basis or enhance it. I mean, those are all different dimensions of it. I think what the member is getting to, as well, is, again, subject to a l ot of debate in and around the lake. The flip side of what happened last year is –you know, certainly, I've talked to scientists who've said that in terms of water quality, you know, ironically, with the flushing out it's probably had some impact on reducing some of the–you know, the saline issues, et cetera.

Mind you, if you get areas where the water has receded you do–you usually get some salt deposits, you know, that can impact on land quality. So it–you know, it–again, it depends, you know, the actual ambient water quality versus the surrounding area. I think one of the key issues, though, through the–through this report will be addressing not just the flooding issues but the broader issues. Again, that's why we've a separate report on the regulatory le vel. It's not just focused only on flooding, it's focused in on the–you know, the general regulatory framework, which will allow us to use all of these issues.

And, yes, my sense is we will have a very comprehensive report that will address a lot of the issues the member's talking about. And I do accept the point too, by the way, that there's the issue of the range, but, there's also the issue of the –if I could use the word "protocol" for how you operate, you know, and what the goals are, and, again, those are, you know, outside of the regulatory range that's adapted. We do–we'll have operating rules, et cetera.

The good news, though, is if we do need to move on an emergency or permanent basis with the outlet we have, one of the things that we won't have to deal with, necessarily, in –you know, emergent flood situations, is what we had prior to last year, which is the fact that we had to shut down but –not shut down, but significantly ratchet back the Fairford outlet in the winter to avoid huge problems with the–you know, with ice -related flooding on Lake St. Martin.

So we do have one more tool in the tool box if we need it, and that may play a very significant r ole, I believe, in not only future flood situations, but the deliberations of this task force. So I'm not going to prejudge them, but I think they're going to address a lot of the issues that the member's talking about. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, two things, and I 'll ask them both, although they're slightly different. One is we've talked about the lake level, the target lake level, 810.5 to 812.5 for Lake Manitoba, what has been the government's target level for Lake St.

Martin for the last number of years, and second, on the government's record–NDP and Conservative governments in this province, on dealing with artificial flood to da te, has not been a really good record. After the Red River flood, this wasn't resolved until, you know, there was a court action and, you know, the government was forced to admit that there actually was an artificial flood. There's a situation at the She llmouth Dam, which the minister's familiar with. It's been going on for, I think, about 41 years, and that's still not resolved, and I think that's before the courts right now.

And I think that, you know, it would be –the government would be well to acknowledge that there was some level of artificial flood in figuring out, you know, how you actually respond to people on Lake Manitoba. And I'll let the minister comment on that. Mr. Ashton: Well, I'm not going to get into blaming Premier Campbell for –he was a Liberal –for not building the floodway or any of the, you know, the things.

Although, I do want to stress, by the way, that if we really wanted to go there, and if you actually look at the evolution in the–of this issue in the 1950s and '60s, and–I don't know if I should get into the partisan end of it here, but the member did mention that it was interesting because when it came to the floodway, actually, it was brought in by the Conservative government of the day, and the party that opposed it was the Lib eral Party, and the New Democratic Party in the '60s, they had concerns about some of the expropriation issues.

So I'm not sure if I would want to get into the historic partisan politics of flooding because, you know what? I think we've gotten to the point where people of all political stripes would say the right things have happened. I do want to stress, by the way, that we did, as a government, bring in the legislation that provides

1438 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2012 statutory compensation for the operation of the Shellmouth and–so I thin k that is something that's long overdue. I know the former member for Russell lobbied for years. Now, ironically, when he was a minister in government–and probably the first to say that it was an NDP government that brought it in–but the key issue, to my m ind, is you start from two premises here. One is, I –you know –and I'm not going to repeat what I said on the issue of artificial flooding before, but the first premise is to improve flood protection for everyone.

And not that we didn't do things this flood or had done things prior to the flood to made a difference with –they made a huge difference. But after a major historical flood, you sit down and you look at what worked, what didn't, and you come up with a–better systems in the future. We have those two reports. We're moving very quickly, by the way, even more quickly than after '97. And it's not a criticism of, you know, post -'97.

I mean, it's just a reality that we want to move ahead, and we want, particularly, the issue of building levels in around Lake Manitoba to be settled and also, you know, the related issues around Lake St. Martin. People just can't wait, two, three, four years. We've got to get that information. You know, we have the interim building standards, but people need some certainty. So we are going to proceed with it. * (12:10) The member did talk about Lake St. Martin. The range is, as he would know, 798 to 800.

It's currently 801.25, so it's very similar to Lake Manitoba, still above the regulatory level, and until it gets below the regulatory level, whatever the future regulatory level is, it really is still having a significant impact on people around the lake. Mr. Gerrard: One wind- up comment: Thank you for that. You know that the Campbell government actually asked for the commis sion which laid the foundation for building the floodway, so thank you. Mr. Wishart: Mr.

Chair, I'm –in early May, your government made an announcement regarding assistance for municipalities around the lake that were impacted by flooding in terms of some compensation for municipal assessment write-downs, and you included a number of RMs, but left out three at the south end: Woodlands, Westbourne, and Portage. I'm wondering what the rationale for including the rest of the ones around the lake and leaving those three out might have been. Mr.

Ashton : Yes, I would recommend detailed questions to the M inister of Local Government which is administering the program and did develop criteria for the program, but we didn't make the announcement, so I will give the member a general

summary. The–they looked at, obviously, the impacts. They looked at the assessed tax base and identified the municipalities most affected by that shift. I mean, some larger municipalities, obviously you're dealing with a smaller part o f the tax base, has less of an impact. But some of the smaller municipalities and some of the municipalities with limited assessment, you would have seen some very significant impacts on it.

So that's the–that was the general rationale, was to identify the most vulnerable municipalities in terms of impacts on the higher assessments that would result from the lower –like, the shift of taxes, pardon me, from the fact that you'd have some higher assessed properties versus the, you know, flood- affected properties were lower assessed.

I do want to just add one other quick thing, and that is that it's been put in place for this year –it's certainly our goal with rebuilding the lakes to get the lake back to normal and one of the experiences out of '97 is that proper ties that might have been flood-impacted and, you know, the value of those properties might have decreased at that point in time, if you go to the Red River Valley today with confidence restored, you know, by some of the flood protection projects, the values have rebounded dramatically. Well, in fact, they significantly exceed what the values were, even pre- '97.

So our goal here is to put some temporary assistance in place but to, you know, to rebuild the confidence in the lake and that will have impacts on property values and assessment. Mr. Smook: Thank you, Mr. Minister. On March 30th, I received a letter from Department of Labour stating that MIT has taken steps to assess heavy metal exposure levels within the provincial locksmith's office. I was jus t wondering if this has been done and when the results would be available. Mr. Ashton: The member's already asked a number of questions about the locksmith's office.

He seems to have a particular interest in this area, so I will get a comprehensive response including to this question. Mr. Smook : In regards to Highway 59 from St. Malo to the border, and 201 from, say, 59 to 75 as an

May 18, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1439 alternative flood route, has there been any thoughts by the minister's department as to –about doing anything on those particular pieces of highway, especially like, say, the bridge, the Marais bridge at – between Letellier and 75? Mr. Ashton: The key issue , of course, is when we do have a flood, it impacts on our main 'innerconnal' trade route, which is Highway 75. We do put in place a detour and it does provide continued access. It did last year; it has historically.

And our goal is to reduce the number of days which 75 is closed, and the key is managing a lot of the hydraulic issues in and around Morris. But, notwithstanding that, what it leads to really is –I know there's been consideration of, sort of, 59. The reality is you wouldn't set up a alternate flood route that is actually longer and doesn't have the connections, to begin with anyway, than the alternate flood route that is set up during every spring flood in which 75 is closed. And we have done a significant amount of work upgrading 59 south star ting, actually, back in 2000.

But there's a very significant difference in traffic volumes in the southern part of, you know, 59, and that's a factor we do take into account. And I know other MLAs have raised issues and their constituents were facing a lot of pressure. So what we look at with 59 is no different than we'd look else –at elsewhere. So that has been looked at, but just, as I said, the fact is there is an alternate route that's established every year. That's not the problem for us. The real probl em is the lack –is the large number of days in which Morris is closed.

And when I say a problem for us is a problem for the trucking industry, it certainly is disruption in Morris. That's our key goal on the flood side. Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Way, way back now, at the beginning of this process, I did ask the minister about the hydrological study that was going to be undertaken in the Morris area, and it just–is the clock ran out. So I'm just going to ask the question again, as to when that study was originally to begin, I think there was a start date to begin the study, and what's the status of that study right now? Mr. Ashton: It was delayed because of the flood.

It's one of the numerous projects that we have had to shift resources into. When I say we, that includes the consulting engineers that are doing this as well. I am advised that it will start shortly. Mrs. Taillieu: Okay, thanks. So the study has not begun. Can you indicate when you think it will begin then? Is there a timeline? Mr. Ashton : Yes, in terms of the public we're anticipating a –well, certainly, the point of open house is within a year.

So they're going to start shortly, obviously, to–you know, they do some of the internal work, but within a year so by next spring we're anticipating going directly to the public. Mrs. Taillieu: Okay, well, in the interests of time, I'm going to move on to another question. I asked this question before, too, in regard to the Trans-Canada Highway and the junction of 330. And since the time that I asked the question before there's been another accident at that intersection, and I'm wondering what action can be taken now to address safety issues at this intersection such as, perhaps, a controlled intersection. Mr.

Ashton: Yes, we do have a cons ultant working on this. We–that was actually meeting us as recently as yesterday on this. It's looking at ways to deal with that particular scenario. I'll undertake to keep the member informed as it proceeds. So they're actively looking at possible mitigation that area. Mrs. Taillieu: Sorry, I just didn't quite hear what the minister said. Is he saying they're looking at an intersection in that area–a controlled intersection? Mr. Ashton : They're looking at the intersection.

There's a consultant that met with the department yesterday and they're looking at all issues related to safety in the area. They're not ruling anything in or out, but they're actively working on options in that area. Mr. Wishart: And Mr. Minister, I'd like to go back to the Portage D iversion for a minute. It has increased its capacity on an emergency basis to something in the neighbourhood of 32,000 cubic feet per second.

Will that be the permanent capacity of that and, if so, what are the plans to deal with the outlet structure which were originally constructed for 25,000 and has never been upgraded? * (12:20) Mr. Ashton: Yes, I think this was seen during last year. The actual physical capacity is one issue, the channel. The member is quite correct about the control structure.

There was some very creative engineering, technical work was actually done to protect the integrity of the physical structure, the controls, actually, during the flood period because there was the potential, actually, that the higher levels, the whole structure could be flooded itself. So that was done on interim basis.

1440 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 18, 2012 These are issues I fully anticipate will again be part of these reviews that come back, and, hopefully, I'm anticipating they'll look at, sort of, the rated capacity–you know, the, well, historic rated capacity, the actual capacity in the last flood and whether enhancements need to be made or–you know, I'm not going to prejudge what they'll come back with, but they'll–I'm anticipating they will provide clear recommendations on these issues. Mr.

Wishart: So you were talking about the inlet in terms of improvements there, but I was also asking question related to the outlet of the diversion where it goes into Lake Manitoba and the fail-safe that's been, frankly, used almost as much as the outlet t he last few years. What do I tell the people that are impacted by the fail -safe? That they should be moving to higher ground? Mr. Ashton : Good point. I thank the member for clarifying the question. I–actually, again, this will be part of the overall review.

I mean, the member's quite correct; the fail -safe has been used fairly extensively and not just last year. I mean, it's been in use quite regularly over the last number of years, so we will look at that and I – his predecessor was a strong lobbyist on t he Portage Diversion. I think if you check Hansard, you'll find his predecessor's name will appear next to it quite a few times. Seems like the tradition is continuing, and we're going to look at all the aspects of that.

We have done repairs, but the bigger issue is, you know, do you continue to operate and then repair or are there other ways in which we can deal with this? Mr. Smook: I guess we're ready to summarize the line by line, whatever we need to do. Mr. Chairperson: Hearing no further questi ons, we will now proceed to consideration of the resolutions relevant to this department. I will now call resolution 15.2. Resolution 15.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $76,003,000 for Infrastructure and Transportation, Highways and Transportation Programs. Resolution agreed to.

Resolution 15.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $50,927,000 for Infrastructure and Transportation, Government Services Program s, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2013. Resolution agreed to. Resolution 15.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $187,236,000 for Infrastructure and Transportation, Infrastructure Works, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2013. Resolution agreed to.

Resolution 15.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,497,000 for Infrastructure and Transportation, Emergency Measures Organization, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2013. Resolution agreed to. Resolution 15.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $328,196,000 for Infrastructure and Transportation, Costs Related to Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2013. Resolution agreed to.

Resolution 15.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $650,355,000 for Infrastructure and Transportation, Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2013. Resolution agreed to. The last item to be considered for the Estimates of this departm ent is item 15.1.(a), the minister's salary, contained in the resolution 15.1. At this point we request that the minister's staff leave the table for the consideration of this item –last item. The floor is open for questions. Question? Mr.

Smook: No, just that I'd like to thank the staff for participating in these Estimates and anybody who has participated in –over these last number of days, I'd just like thank them for all their help, and, thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Resolution 15.1: RESOLVED that there be granted Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $8,903,000 for Infrastructure and Transportation, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 2013. Resolution agreed to. This completes the Estimates of the Department of Infrastructure and Transportation. The hour being 12:26, committee rise.

May 18, 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1441 ADVANCED EDUCATION AND LITERACY * (10:00) Mr. Chairperson (Rob Altemeyer): Will the Committee of Supply please come to some semblance of order. This

section of the Committee of Supply will now resume consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Advanced Education and Literacy. As had been previously agreed, questioning for this department will proceed in a global manner and the floor is wide open for questions. Hon. Erin Selby (Minister of Advanced Education and Literacy): Yesterday the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Ewasko) had a few questions on the Bright Futures program. He was looking for some specific numbers that I have for him today.

So, if he would like, I could read t hose into the record now and I think I've got everything that he asked me, but we can obviously go over that and see that–if his questions have been answered. Mr. Chairperson: That would be fine. In the past, information like this has either been read into the record or, if there is a document, it can be tabled and the Clerk will be kind enough to make appropriate copies, and we can do it that way, so. Ms. Selby: I think it's probably easier if I read it in because the document doesn't have any context in i t, so it might be a little obscure. Mr. Chairperson: That's fine.

Please proceed. Go ahead, or–again, honourable Minister, take it away. Ms. Selby: The member was asking yesterday about the specific numbers at each program and the total number of young pe ople involved in the Bright Futures program for the 2011-2012. I do want to tell him that right now, the numbers that we have are still just the estimated numbers. They haven't been confirmed yet, but I believe it's confirmed through Family Services –children and youth, pardon me, because, of course, the Bright Futures program has moved over to children opportunities and youth.

But here are the numbers and the breakdown for Bright Futures as of 2011- 2012. Wayfinders had 220 children. The bursary management SEED Winnipeg program had 400–I should say, young people. Career Trek had 208 young people. CSI, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Winnipeg, had 720. Medical Careers Exploration Program, through the Pan Am Clinic, had 72. Pathways community education develop association had 218 young people. Peaceful Village at the Manitoba School Improvement Program had 140. Power Up, the Boys and Girls Club of Winnipeg, had 290.

And You Can Do It Winnipeg Poverty Reduction Council has 320 young people, for a total of 2,588 young people involved in Bright Futures, as I said, estimated number of the Bright Futures participants for 2011-2012. And the member was asking for the–I'm not sure and I'd have to clarify if he wanted the breakdown spending for each of those programs or i f he just wants the total spending. Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Lac du Bonnet): If the minister has the breakdown for each, that would be great, and just also, the second part of the original question was also for '10 and '11 as well, for the numbers, so. Ms.

Selby: I will go back then and give the member the numbers for 2010- 2011 for the students in each program, and, again, just saying that these are the estimated numbers and child–children opportunity and youth department, which has Bright Futures, would perhaps be able to confirm those.

The numbers for 2010- 2011 for the Wayfinders, Seven Oaks School Division, 180 young people; bursary management SEED Winnipeg, 336; Career Trek was 460; CSI, Boys and Girls Clubs of Winnipeg, 720; Medical Careers Exploration Program, Pan Am Clinic is 70; Pathways was 130; Peaceful Village, 80; Power Up! at the Boys and Girls Club, 260; and You Can Do It, Winnipeg Poverty Reduction Council, 320. So the total in 2010-2011 was 2,624. And the member was asking about the funding for those.

So for the 2012- 2013 estimated funding it has–and again those numbers could be confirmed with child –children, opportunity and youth–is $1,964,860; that's the 2012- 2013. I'm assuming the member wanted the 2011-2012 numbers as well; that total was $3,645,348. And just to confirm, did the member want the 2010- 2011 total funding? [interjection] No, he's good with the 2011-2012. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Ewasko: For the Bright Futures f und, how do– what's the process for organizations or groups to apply to be part of the fund? Ms. Selby:

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	40-1-36c
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	40th 1st hansardpdf 36c.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9554d646718944e6beca286faf701deef6f397b8

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