Manitoba Hansard — 25 May 1977 (Sitting 67B, 30th Legislature, 4th Session)

30-4-67b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 FOURTH SESSION- THIRTIETH LEGISLATURE of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 26 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Peter Fox Speaker VOL. XXIV No.67B, WEDNESDAY,MAY 25, 19 77 2:30p.m. Printed by P.N. Crosbie-Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba

TIME: 2:30 p.m. THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY of MANITOBA Wednesday, May 25, 1977 OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Honourable Peter Fox {Kildonan): Before we proceed I should like to di rect the attention of the honourable mem bers to the gallery where we have 80 students of Grades 5 and 6 standing of the McGregor Elementary School under the dir ection of Mrs. McGregor, Mrs. Clark, Miss Kitchen and Mrs. Pennell. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Memb er for Portage la Prairie . And we have 29 students of Grades 5 and 6 standing of the Swan Lake School under the dir ection of Mr.

Foidar t. This school is from the constituency of the Honourable Member for Rock Lake. And we have 44 students of Grade 6 standing of schools from Madison and Fargo, North Dakota. And we have a group of guests from the Loyal Travel Service from Min nesota. On behalf of all the honourable mem bers we welcome you here this afternoon. Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees; Min isterial Statements and Tabling of Reports; Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bil ls. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR.

STERLING lYON {Souris-Killarney): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Fi rst Min ister. Is he now in a position to make a statement to the House with respect to the dispute at the Jenpeg generating station and the problem arising from unpaid accounts? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Fi rst Min ister. HONOURABLE EDWARD SCHREYER, Premier {Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, I have no statement. I have ascertai ned the facts.

The facts are that today the princi pals of Flanders Installation Limi ted and the turbine suppliers are meeting, and there is an arrangement that in the event that Hydro's presence is requir ed or information is requir ed, Hydro stands ready to provide it. So di scussions are current as of today. MR. lYON: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary to the First Min ister. Can he advise whether or not there has been a withd rawal of the work force by Flanders, and if so, to what extent? MR. SCHREYER: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no withd rawal of the work force.

There was a suggested possibil ity that would take place if certai n things did not materializ e, and that is precisely the reason for the di scussions and negotiations today. I migh t add further that work having to do with the fi rst unit is beyond the stage of installation. lt is in the final testing and readiness process and is not affected by the other possible - or whether it is probable - interruption of work. But up to this point in time, there has been none. MR. lYON: Mr.

Speaker, a question to the Fi rst Min ister on another Hydro-related topic, and it relates as well to the Min ister of Consumer and Corporate Affai rs. With permission there is some brief bit of explanation required.

In cases where apartment blocks are being required to go on demand meteri ng, could the Fi rst Min ister advise if there is liaison between Manitoba Hydro and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with respect to the im pact of The Rent Stabiliz ation Act thereon, arising from the fact, as reported to us, that Manitoba Hydro is unable to give an approximate estima te of what the demand billing will be on blocks whic h are heated and treated as one unit, one meter, for Hydro charges, thereby causin g the landlord or the property owner to be possibly in contravention of The Rent Stab il ization Act because of the inab il ity to get an estimate from Hydro?

MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I believe with respect to new or relatively new apartments that it is possible to give an estima te that is reasonably close. With respect to the older blocks I'm not sure, and accordi ngly I will take the entire question as notice and check it out. MR.l YON: Mr. Speaker, another question to the First Mini ster. Is the First Min ister in a positi on to advise what policy, if any, the government has form ulated, with respect to the recomm endation oft he Franco-Manitobain Socie ty that there be a totally autonomous French school system in the Province of Manitoba? MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, I don't know if that was the formal suggestion, but in any case, that is not government policy. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Lakeside. MR. HAR J. ENNS: I direct a question to the Honourable the Mini ster of Renewable Resources and Transportation.

My question to the Min ister is, with reference to a contract for gravelling of some 21 mi les of all-weather road at Norway House, is the Min ister prepared to waive tenders on this project, as permitted under the North lands Agreement, and award the contract to Sea Falls Trucki ng Lim ited, on the proviso, of course, that local man power is used. 3377

Wednesday, May 25, 19 77 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister tor Renewable Resources. HONOURABLE HARVEY BOSTROM (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, there's been no decision to go tor tender or whatever on that particular project at this time. The tender will probably be let some time in July or August on that particular project. MR. ENNS: A suppleme ntary question, Mr. Speaker, to the same Min ister.

Is the Min ister not prepared to take advantage of the clauses under the North lands Agreement, that in instances where work of this kind can be and ought to be, in my judgment, let out or made avai lable to the local people, that he would in this instance waive the tenderi ng process? MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Speaker, we wi ll be looking at all possibi lities and wi ll follow the course that is most prudent. MR.

ENNS: Can the Min ister confirm that on the last $4 mil lion contract for simil ar road work done in that area, that the award was made to an outsider, a southerner in this instance, employing little or no local people? MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Speaker, the contract was awarded in the normal fashion, as any highway contract is awarded in the Province of Manitoba. Legitima te tenders were called and the lowest bidder was awarded the contract. MR.

ENNS: Then I would ask the Min ister, you are prepared then to waive those kind of agreements that the Northlands Agreement specifically mak es it possible for you to give Job Creation an opportunity to work in those particular areas like Norway House where it's needed, where 80 percent of the residents are on welfare. MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, there was no construction company in Norway House which could undertake major road construction work such as was needed under the circumstances, so there was no one to whom a contract could be awarded in the com mu nity of Norway House. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. R. (Bud) SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Honourable the Attorney-General, and I would ask him whether he has, as yet, received the legal opini on that he was seeking with respect to the constitutional ity or unconstitutional ity of Bill 18, the Retail Busi nesses Holiday Closi ng Act? With your permission, Sir , I'll repeat the question. I believe the Min ister of Labour didn't hear the question. I directed the question to the Attorney-General, however, I would want the Min ister of Labour's attention on it anyway, Sir .

The question is whether the Attorney-General has, as yet, received the legal opinion which he undertook to obtain as to the constitutional ity or otherwise of Bi 11 18? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HONOURABLE HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I don't recall the undertaking referred to by the Honourable Member for Fort Ga rry. I do recall the submis sion s that were made to the comm ittee, and ind ication at that commit tee that certai nly I would be consideri ng the submis sions pertai ning to the constitutional ity. I don't recall the reference to a specific undertaking. MR.

SHERMAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, and without di vulging any confidential ities, I wonder whether I could ask the Attorney-General whether he did not undertake to a Mr. Ken Regier and to one of the legal counselS of the department to seek a legal opini on on the constituti onality of the bill? MR. PAWLEY: The Honourable the Mini ster of Mines was present when I was speaking with Mr. Regier. He provided me with some case law and had suggested that we look into the constitutionality of the matters before the House.

I certainl y ind icated I would review the materials bei ng provided to me. 1 don't recall the specific comm itment, but certainly I will review the arguments that have been subm itted to the House pertaining to the constitutional ity. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, in line with that undertaki ng, would the Attorney-General consider suspension of further consideration of the bill pending a legal deci sion and legal satisfac tion on his part as to whether we are dealing with a constitutional or an unconstitutional measure? ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. -(I nterjections)- Order please.

Order please. Order please. I wonder if those gentlemen who wish to have a conference of their own would leave and take it outside. HONOURABLE SIDNEY GREEN (lnkster): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Min ister of Labour, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Commit tee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Comm ittee of Supply with the Honourable Member for Logan in the Chair. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY 3378

Wednesday, May 25, 1977 ESTIMATES - MINES, RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT MR. CHAIRMAN, Mr. William Jenkins (Logan): I would refer honourable mem bers to Page 44 of their Esti mates Books, Resolution 83{

d) Exploration

(1) Salaries and Wages $626,3 00- pass.

(2) Other Expenditures $487,800-pass. 83(

e) Geological Services (1 ) Salaries and Wages $61 3,300.00. The Honourable Member for St. James. MR. GEORGE MINAKER: I wonder, Mr. Chai rman, if the Honourable Min ister can advise us of the contract employees under the total for Item 83 and all its subsecti ons, and possibly the computer charges? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mini ster for Mi nes. MR. GREEN: The honourable mem ber wi shes the numb er of contract employees and the computer services under Other Expenditu res in all of Item 83. That will be obtained. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 83(g)

(1) Salaries and Wages $613,30 0- pass. The Honourable Minis ter of Mines. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, contract employees under that di vision, 48. Computer charges, $11 ,500 under 83(3)(d)( 2). That's it. -(l nterjections)- MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please! If these honourable mem bers want caucus meeting s, go outside somewhere else. The Honourable Minis ter of Mi nes. MR. GREEN: Details on the prospectors' training program: 1975, number of graduates, eleven; 1976, ni neteen; 1977, fourteen expected.

Gone back to university: 1975, four; 1976, ten; employed by the department: 1975, three; 1976, zero; employed by ind ustry: 1975, two; 1976, one. Seeking employment and prospecting in Manitoba and in British Columb ia: one in 1975; eight in 1976. No longer interested: one, 1975. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 83(e)

(1) Salaries and Wages $613,300 -pass; Other Expenditu res $267,900-pass. 83(

f) Canada-Manitoba General Development Agreement - Minerals Sub Agreement:

(1) Salaries $14 6,000-pass; Other Expenditu res $763,90 -pass. Resolution 83 Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,344,300 for Mi nes, Resources and Environmental Managem ent-pass. Resolution 84. Water Management. (

a) Ad min istration (1 ) Salaries and Wages $419,400. 00. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. WARNER H. JORGENSON: Mr. Chai rman, in this particular branch of the Minis ter's department, I would like to raise the question of the agreement that the government has sign ed with the American authorities with respect to the works that are contemplated on the Roseau River and whic h will have some im pact on that portion of the province in whic h the Roseau River flows.

My understanding of the nature of the agreement is that the American authorities, the corps of engineers, had effected a considerable amou nt of draina ge in the Roseau River basin, which increased the flows of the trib utaries lead ing into the Roseau and thereby creating somewhat of a problem in the City of Roseau itself in that the channel was not able to remove the water qu ickly enough to prevent flooding in the area of the City of Roseau. The plan of the corps of engi neers was to straighten and enlarge the channel leadin g from the City of Roseau north to the Canadi an border.

I know that a large portion of the water that drains into the Roseau River comes in from two tri butaries that origina te in the southeastern part of Manitoba- the Sprague Creek and Pine Creek and, indeed, a number of years ago, a· di version was constructed from Pine Creek into the Roseau River Wil dlife Management area in order to facil itate the flows of water into that management area.

Now I am not sure just the nature or the status of the present arrangement that the Government of Manitoba have with the American authorities and I would lik e to have the Min ister outline in some detail just where the situation stands at the present time. The final report of the International Joint Commission, and I understand it is the final report that was recently subm itted, accepts the proposition that the American authorities would be paying to the Man itoba Government a sum in excess of $3 mill ion for mitiga ting works along that portion of the river that flows into Manitoba.

I am not convinced and I know there are a numb er of people who live along the reaches of the Roseau Riv er who are also not convinced that the $3 milli on that are contem plated in mi tiga ti ng works will be sufficient to carry on the kind of improvements to bridges and roads, etc., particularly in the area of the Municipal ity of Franklin , to coensate for the damage that will be done.

My understanding is that the com pensation of $3 mil lion is largely intended to compensate the Provincial Government for the imp rovements, bridge s, $10 ,000 for the treatment plant at Domi nion City and other works, enlargement of the channel, the Gardenton Floodway and the flood di version to the Red River at the Roseau River In dian Reserve, or the general area of Lake flood seau as it is called during periods. 1 see nothing in the agreement that will com pensate the muni cipalities, or nothing in the proposals that were made by the IG AC, to compensate the muni cipalities for the extra work that they will have to do in connection with the construction of bridges and the dama ges that could occur with the increased flows that are antici pated.

There is no question that the engi neers, both the Canadian and the American engi neers, in their engin eering study report, have concluded and have agreed that 3379

Wednesday, May 25, 1977 there wi ll be increased flows. Well, Mr. Chai rman, increased flows in addition to those that already exist during periods of water would increase the problem that the mu nicipalities have in that area. lt seems to me that the concept of accepting compensation for estimated damages that may well exceed, by a considerable margin, the antici pated flows, is really not the best way of negotiati ng an agreement. Indeed, I find it rather di fficult to understand how the Min ister can accept the concept of compensation in this particu lar instance, when he rejected it out of hand insofar as the Garrison is concerned, and I draw to the Mini ster's attention an

article whic h appeared in The Manitoban, an interview which he had with the reporter from the paper, in which he said this: The question that was asked the Min ister was, "Why was there no discussion of compensation at the recent meeting with Governor Lin k?" And the Min ister replied, "Because that is the smal lest stick that I could use.

If I said to the Governor of the State of North Dak ota, we want to be compensated for the damage that you are causing us, he would say, 'Good, you are now compensated and we are going ahead just as we please, and whatever change we cause we will compensate for.' And then, instead of $600 mi llion, they wi 11 spend $603 mi 11 ion and they wi 11 say they were compensated. The request for corn pensation is the smalle st stick we've got.

They will gi ve us that im mediately." I fi nd it difficult to understand why the Minis ter, in this instance, would reject compensation, and yet, in the case of the Roseau River will accept it. He may want to explain that. I find that the situation is parallel with one exception. The only di fference in the two projects is that, in the case of the Garrison, you are introducing water from another basin into the Red River basi n. But in the case of Roseau, it is water that would normally find its way down that basin in any case.

But the widening of that channel is intended to accommo date a greater flow of water whic h of necessity will increase the flow of water, which in turn will erode or cause a considerable amount of erosion. I recall shortly after the 1950 flood along the Red River when speaking to the people from Water Resources, and we had many discussi ons in those days. There was very little else to do during the height of the flood other than fi lling sandbags, but to discuss what could be done to prevent flooding.

And one of the suggestions I made at the ti me, in my ignorance of hyraulic engi neering, was that the Red River Basin, whic h contains a simi lar situation that exists in the Roseau River where a height of land north of the Town of Morris prevents the water from escaping at a rate faster than it comes into the basin, thereby creating a rise in the levels of the water behind that rise of land, which resulted in 1950 water levels reaching a height of about seven feet above the height of land at the Town of Morris.

When I suggested that perhaps the river channel could be widened and straightened in order to move the water out more quickly, I was told by the engi neers - and I had to accept that because that was advice that I thought was based on engineering studies and knowledge of the effects of movements of water - I was told that the straightening and the widening of that channel would increase the velocity of the water to the extent that there would be great danger of continuous erosion along the banks of the river and more destruction would be wrought than was taking place during the height of the flood.

Well, that's precisely what is happening in the Roseau River on the American side. They're widen ing and strai ghtening that channel which can only have the result of increasing the flow ofthe water into the Canadian side and, notwithstanding the Gardenton di version that is contemplated, the fact is that the water along the Canadian

section of the Roseau River is going to move in at a much faster rate and in order to be accomm odated with in the banks of the river, is going to have to move out at a faster rate whic h presumes that there is going to be some channel widening taking place at certain portions of the Red River. But the great di fficulty will be experienced when the water reaches or goes past the Roseau Rapids portion of that river.

There is a considerable fall in the river at that point, 19 feet, I believe, to one mile , but beyond that and thence to the Red River, the land is fai rly flat and the only way that that water can be accomm odated is by spreading out. One can only assume that there is going to be a considerable amount of flooding that will take place as a result of those increased flows. In additi on to that, Mr.

Chai rman, the Americans in that area of the province, or in that area of the state, have drai ned and have put under cultivation considerable portions of land that are in the Roseau River draina ge basin which assumes that if that land is to be intensely cultivated, there will be a greater use of pesticide s, herbici des, fertiliz ers, and all of those chemic als that caused so much of a problem to the ecologists who were speaking out against the Garrison Diversion.

I can see no dif ference insofar as pollution is concerned with the exception of, as I said, the transfer of waters from one river basin to another, I can see no di fference in the degree and the kind s of pollution that will be taking place along the waters of the Roseau River with that more intensive application of agricu ltural practices that are contemplated in that area. ' One other thing that I would like the Mini ster to tell us is if he has knowledge of what other areas of that basin either in the Un ited States or in Canada, because I happen to know that in the Canadian portion some of the trib utaries along the Pine Creek and the Sprague Creek dis tricts, there is some pretty good farm land there as well and I would think that ultimately there would be an incli nation on 3380

Wednesday, May 25, 1977 the part of some enterprising farmers to go in there and start farm ing that land. If that does happen, then there is going to be an increased application of chemicals along that portion as well whic h will be flowing from Canada into the States and through the Roseau River back into Canada again and up along the Red River.

I wonder if the Mi nister could gi ve us some idea of how much more land is capable of bei ng drai ned in that area which will, after a period of time, add to the pollution that will currently exist as a result of the farming practices that are taking place there right now.

I would also want the Mi nister to tell us at what stage this whole agreement now is at; whether there is a final agreement; is there a provision for accelerating costs from the tim e that the original agreement was made of $3 mill ion to the time of actual construction- and one can only assume with rising costs and increased energy costs in particular - that the $3 mil lion will be a figur e that would be well out of reach of actual costs at the time that the construction will begin.

I want the Minis ter to tell us also at what stage has the government now reached in preparations for the mi tigating works that are planned, are contem plated on the Canad ian side in order to ameli orate the effects of the increased floodin g that will take place as a result of the widening of that channel on the American side. lt would seem to me that if the Americ ans - and my understanding is that they intend to proceed with construction on their side just as soon as weather conditions will permit them to do so - that it would be negligent on our

part if we failed to have in readiness the mi tiga tin g works on the Canadian side in preparation to meet the increased flows of water. The present weather conditions are ideal for construction for one thing but secondly, they are not going to continue and, if in the event we return to higher levels of water, it would be someth ing greater than tragic if we did not have in place at that time the projects that were originally contemplated in the report of the International Joint Comm ission. I wonder if the Minis ter could give us some information as to just what is the present status oft hat entire operation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minis ter of Mi nes. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, fi rst the status of the proceeding s and I will concede to my honourable friend that at one time I was somewha t confused as to what stage they were in. The final report was received, making recommendations to the governments as to the findi ngs of the study board. That was the report of the International Joint Com mis sion. The step then is for our government and the government of the United States to meet and dis cuss how that report is or is not going to be imple mented.

Our technical people met with the Federal Government people in order to deal with some of the matters raised by my honourable friend including the- our understanding is that we are talking about actual costs. The estimates of what work would have to be done don't provide an adequate measu re of what wi ll have to be paid to get the work done as has been ind icated by other programs that have been undertaken so that we are tal king about actual costs.

The other major feature is that there is some suggestion on the part of our technical people that the $3.08 mill ion, although it is calculated on the basis of certain work being done whic h are a direct consequence of the works in the United States, that some of that money could be better used to greater advantage by not doing that particular work but doing other work in the di strict and the question as to whether we could get agreement to accepting a figure on estima ted value of work with permission to use it in other areas rather than the one specifically ind icated because the one specifi cally ind icated will , in the view of our technicaLpeople, completely or substantially amelior ate the condi tions whic h arise from the works in the United States.

We can get even better results by applying that money to dif ferent water projects in the area, and that is a consider ation that is now being dealt with. The Canadian government would then meet with the American Government as to when -t hetime frame of this would be with in the next month. That is the meeting between the Canad ian people and the American people. - (I nterjection) - We ll' the meeting with the Americans would be scheduled, I would hope, shortly after tha, with in the next two months.

I take my honourable friend's caution seriously that we have to move in such a way that the Canad ian works are in place so that they are effective as soon as the American works go into motion. So I accept that word of urgency on the part of my honourable friend and I convey it im media tely to our department. They will be meeting with the Canadi an representatives very shortly.

There was a meeting in April and there will be another meeting wit hin the next three weeks and there will be, I would thi nk, continu ous contact with the American counterpart by Envi ronment Canada, I believe is the group - External Affairs - which is meeting with the Un ited States officials. Now that is the status of the matter. MR. JORGENSON: If the Min ister could ind icate just what time frame is he talking about from the start until the completion of the widen ing and strai ghtening of the channel on the American side. How much time do we have? Two years? MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chai rman, my understanding of the matter is that the American works will not go ahead until there is an arrangement between the two governments or until the two governments come to the conclusions that they cannot make an arrangeme nt, whic h I don't even wish to 3381

Wednesday, May 25, 1977 contemplate. I would think that matters have proceeded in an amicable way up to this point and I wouldn't want to contem plate other arrangements. So whatever time frame it is, if thi ngs take their normal course that ti meframe would permit the Canadia ns to move concurrently with the Americans in dealin g with whatever projects are decided to be undertaken. MR.

JORGENSON Again, while we're on this particular phase of the discussion, I wonder if the Minister, since he indicated that negotiations are now taking place for some alternatives, if I understood him correctly, to the proposals that were contained in the IJC Report, if he could take the House into his confidence and tell us just what those alternatives are at the present time. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Chai rman, I believe that those matters have been as a result of the di scussions between the Division and after di scussions with various people in the area.

The projects and estima ted costs are: The Gardenton Floodway Rehabil itation is $307,000.00. These are the mi tigating works. This is what they have allowed for. Channel enlargement of $2,000,063; the extension of brid ges $300,000; the Roseau Red River Diversion, $405,000; and Dom in ion City Water Treatment' $10,000.00. Now that is what is provided for in the Study Board Report. The recommendations ' and by the way these have to be agreed to by the Department of External Affairs as a reasonable means of dealing with the question.

If you'll just give me a minu te I'll get the list of suggestions that we'll proceed with as possible alternativ es. MR. JORGENSON: While the Min ister is looking it up, am I to understand then that the costs that were arrived at do contain a provision of escalation from the time thatthose costs were arrived at unti l actual construction. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I've ind icated that that these estima ted costs are the Study Board's recommendations for the mi tiga ting works that would have to be constructed in Canada. lt is not the amount of compensation.

We are talking about compensation in the amount of that which would be requi red to complete those works, but there had to be an estima te as to what they were in view of the fact that the works were not bei ng constructed. We are dealing with the actual works, not with the estima tes and I've im pressed upon the department several times to do that.

Now projects of the co-ordinated plan with in the Canad ian portion of the basin include work such as flood-proofing buildi ngs, river dik es, land draina ge works, wildli fe im poundments, reclamation of swamp lands for agricultural purposes and water based recreation schemes. This would be in place of complete fulfi lment of the channel enlargement, that we wouldn't do exactly what is suggested as being the necessary mi tiga ting work in that area and we would use some of that money for projects such as I have now listed. l believe there should be more details of some of these suggested projects.

I will try and get them again. I will sti ll try and get them for my honourable friend. Mr. Chai rman, I guess that that is the generality in which they are now in. They would have to be negotiated as substitutes and we would have to be certain that they are satisfactory to create better conditions in the area than would be created if we did the channel area im provement just as is suggested. And that is what the departmental people have suggested with respect to this program. The IJC Report tells you the amount that would be needed to deal with the mi tiga ting works and that has been prepared, Mr.

Chai rman, after long consultation with the areas concerned. I believe that this matter fi rst arose in 1965 or 1966, although the Roseau River and the works that they've been constructing much predates that, but between that time and the present there have been numerous meetings and discussions with people in the area, surveys of what problems would occur. There was an International Joint Comm ission set up. A Study Board was set up which contained people from our department and people from the United States Department.

There were heari ngs in the areas concerned and the IJC came out with these recommendations. lt is always, I suppose, open for somebody to say that, well we did n't get enough. l mean, I think it's like any law case, where somebody or any union negotiator who comes back to the mem bers and somebody stands up and says I could have got more. I'd like honourable mem bers to fi rst of all contemplate what is occurring here. When I was at the United Nations Conference in the Argentine, I was shocked to learn that most countries, or many countries do not have such arrangeme nts.

People proceed as they would li ke to and whatever happens, to where the water is flowing is sort of accepted as being one of the conditions of being downstream. Canada and the United States - as of 1909, I believe it is - have an agreement which, although not perfect, works rather well and for the most part, in terms-of the Manitoba border at least, protects Canada. If we did not have this procedure there would be nothing that we could do with regard to the Roseau River.

There would be nothing that we could do with regard to the Garrison Diversion and we wouldn't have what some people think is the right to say "No. Don't proceed with the program." 1 mean when I listen to people sometimes from the Environmental Council, or other people, who suggest that we tell the Americans that they have no right to do anythi ng, it really perplexes me. The people in the United States have a right to proceed in a reasonable way with water programs, just as we in Canada do. And in order to protect the citizens on the other side of the border a procedure has been set up.

But if after setting up this procedure, and after going through the hearings and having the International Joint Com mi ssion try conscientiously to protect both sides we say that we don't 3382

Wednesday, May 25, 1977 agree with that, well, Mr. Chai rman, the elimina tion of the procedure would not help Manitoba. The elimin ation of the procedure would free the United States, where the rivers are flowing from south to north, which is in most cases what is occurring with rivers between Manitoba and the United States. So the principle of what we are doing, in my opinion, cannot be iroved upon by all ofthose people who - especially when the States is involved - think that we should stand up and exact a pound of flesh because it's the Un ited States who is involved in a di spute with Canada.

We have a civil ized way of proceeding with it. I will say that, like in every other di spute between two people either of litigation or unio n and man agement, there will be people who say that you did n't get enough, that other thi ngs could have been included. Ali i can tell my honourable friend is that the best capable people that we have worki ng for the government, conscientiously tried to determ ine what our problems were. Those problems were agreed to by study boards and technical people from both sides of the border. And I want to put in a caveat at this point.

Our study board representatives never took the position that the works south of the border were necessary or desir able. We took no position with regard to those works. What we did say is if they are constructed here is what wi ll have to be done in Canada to deal with the effect of those works. So we did not approve or dis approve. Nor have we a right to approve or di sapprove of what they are doing in the States. What we are saying is that if those works are done, these are the effects that will be felt in Canada and this is how they will have to be dealt with.

Now my honourable friend says that there is a big inconsistency between the position that we took on the Garrison, and the position that we took on the Souris River. l don't know whether they are joki ng with me or they are testing me. But in either case, Mr. Chairman, we will deal with it. In the Garrison Diversion there was a sign ificantly di fferent program and sign ificantly dif ferent treaty rights.

In the Garrison Diversion, our claim was based not on flooding or changing of water levels, our clai m was essentially based - in fact the entire subm ission to the International Joint Commis sion was relative to the pollution of water flowi ng from one country to the other, and the water having been polluted in that flow. And there is a specific

section of the treaty that deals with that. In the case of the Roseau River Diversion, pollution cannot, in any real sense of the word - although in our last brief it was mentioned - be a factor. What is happening is that the same water is com ing, that there will be changes in water levels, and the treaty that we are talking about provides an entirely different remedy.

The treaty with regard to water programs of this kind says that the parties will determin e - and I'm paraphrasing not even the wording oft he treaty, the effect of it -w e have to determine what our problems are as a result of the program and if those problems can be solved. And if the Internati onal Joint Comm ission finds that those can be solved, then that is the kind of di sposition that is made of the matter.

With regards to the Garrison, although I have indi cated that the position is fundament ally di fferent as to claim, the Canadian Government has ind icated - and I accept it - that the International Joint Comm ission can also deal with that question by suggesting that the levels of pollution are not such as would injure persons or property in Canada, and other of their effects can be compensated, and they can make a recom mendation to that effect.

What I said to the students in connection with Garrison is to negotiate that position would be fatal to the Province of Manitoba in terms of any attempt to prevent pollution from taking place. There is no basis upon which we can say that the program in the United States, whic h is a normal water program whic h doesn't divert water from one place to another and send polluted water up to Canada, is not a normal agricultural program which either country should have a right to engage in on thei r side of the border, provided that the International Joint Comm ission procedure is followed.

With regard to the Garrison, it is not a normal use of a waterway, it is the movi ng of one waterway to another waterway, and our case was based on pollution. The flooding argument was hardly used by the Province of Manitoba in any of these cases. lt was used by the CBC with dramatic science fictional -(Inter jection)- Absolutely, Mr. Chai rman, if I was an Americ an, I would wonder at the vindic tiveness and the bitterness of presenti ng such a characterization of what was to occur, which was completely fictional. The flooding features of the Garrison Diversion are relatively non-existent.

I think they are talking about something lik e 500 additional acres of land for several days of the year. So im agine, not quite a

section of land, and the CBC chose to deal with that question. Because, Mr. Chai rman, everywhere you go you wi ll find a little bit of flag-waving and ji ngoism. lt occurs in the Un ited States; it occurs in Canada.

We feel that there is mi leage in suddenly talking about, for instance, that there is no better baby than the Canad ian baby or other worse such thi ngs, which are man ifested today in the Province of Quebec by the term Quebecois, whic h no longer means a person living in Quebec. lt no longer means a bilin gual person. lt no longer means an English speaking person who can speak French. lt now means a person of French origin who speaks French. The fact that I can learn the language and live in Quebec is not satisfactory. Now, Mr.

Chairman , when you engage or when you wish to fan the flames of that kind of jin goism, 3383

Wednesday, May 25, 1977 I suppose you can do it with some. it's never had any effect, I hope. My worst emotion is cheering for the Bombers again st the. Calgary Stampeders. And if I can limit my nationa lism to that, I will be satisfied. -(Interjection)- Since I am not that invo lved in hockey ... . But even that kind of jingoism has its excesses and we have seen it. We have seen it in mass riots at games, etc. But if it can be kept to relatively harmless types of activity, fine.

But when it stems into areas of this kind where we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by being friends with our nei ghbours, and doing unto them as we would have them do unto us, Mr. Chairm an, that is the kind of thing we should be doin g. The CBC program, from what I am advised of it, particularly by the Americans who subsequently spoke to me on the issue, was not a very neighbourly program. But what is worse, it was so non factual when it dealt with the issue of flooding as being the major problem with respect to the Garrison Diversion. So there is a di fference with Garris on.

With Garrison what we said is that we cannot accept the deterioration of our water quality. If that deterioration is considered to be recommended by the International Joint Commissio n, they wi ll have to be the ones to determine how we are compensated because our position wil l be that we believe that the program should not proceed so as to use our river basin.

Now although that position could be reasonably taken with regard to the Garris on, it can't reasonably be taken with regard to the Roseau because when they ask us, "Is there things that can happen in Manitoba which would amelior ate the effect of Roseau flooding?" in all honesty we have to say, "Yes, these thin gs will ameliorate and largely mi tiga te the effects of Roseau." But, we have the people who say that they are going to stop a program. You see, you have a Mr.

Cramers (?) who says that we can stop the program by suggesting that there wi ll be pollution as a result of construction; that there wi ll be additional silt floating down the river bed. Well, certainly that is arguable, certainly. But on that basis, Mr. Chairma n, there is nothin g that can be done south of the border which will not affect Canada and whic h we would then not have the right to say stop to. There is nothing that can be done on the Canadian side of the border where waters flow north to south which the Ameri cans could not say stop to. Now, somebody thinks that w·ill be an improvement?

Are th.ere people who believe that that is an im provement? I believe that that would go to where many countries are in the United Nations - and I was qui te stunned to hear it- that the country whic h is upstream refused to have anythin g to do with the country whic h was downstream. Brazil sat there and they voted again st any form of consultation or di scussion between a downstream country whic h would affect thei r water plants. They wouldn't even admit of the word "discussion" because discussions meant that they would perhaps have to ame liorate what they intended to do. We have a good system.

The system is not always goi ng to find itself approved of by every person who would lik e to exact something additional from the States. The honourable member says, "Are we looking after municipal works? " My understanding is that our admi nis tration not only took it on their own to determine what effect would be felt in municip alities but had consultation with all the municipalities and then the municipa lities, many of them, appeared before the International Joint Commissi on. But would it be fai r to say, Mr.

Chai rman, that some municipalities say that if we've got the Ameri cans by the short ones that now is the time to get some additional work or to have work that we could never get done under ordinary circum stances thrown in to the package? We have tried, and it has not been a political investiga tion.

We have tried conscientiously to not only evaluate what those problems wi ll be but we have visited the municipalities and my im pression was that as a result of the visits to the munici palities and the ind ications of what we intended to include, that by and large, the munici palities accepted the kinds of suggestions that found their way into the study board report. Mr. Weber is nodding that that was the case.

I am sure that after that happened that somebody who said, "Well, this doesn't appear to be bad," was sitting next to somebody who either was just elected to office or wants to be elected and said, "You fool. You should have got this; you should have got that; you should have got ten other thin gs.

The Ameri cans can afford it and now is the time to push." I believe that the people who were responsible for assessing these damages were trying to assess them properly; I believe that the International Joint Comm ission conscienti ously took them into account and I bel ieve that as a result of the process, the people of Manitoba would be, in accelerated figu res dealing with actual and not with estimates, $3 mill ion to the better in terms of dealing with these problems than we would be if we adopted the positions that others are now urgin g whic h amount to: "Let's not have this kind of thing; let's tell the Ameri cans that they cannot proceed." The mome nt we say that you cannot proceed and do not have a manner of determining what is reasonable procedure, then I say that the Ameri cans will ignore you and if I was in the same position and somebody told me that, I would do the same thing.

I believe the system that we have applied is an adeq uate one; I agree with my honourable friend that we have to be careful that we are going to include all of the antici pated problems. I would go further. I would think that if the Department of External Affairs in the United States could agree that if something occurs whic h can dem onstrably be shown to have been caused by the program in the States, and is affecting Canada but which was not anticipated or could not nave been anticipa ted in the study board report, that there should be an agreement that that too will be looked after.

In other words, a non-predicted result because it is 3384

Wednesday, May 25, 1977 impossible to predict every result. That's the kind of thing that I would urge the Canadian government and our government to agree to. The essential remarks that my honourable friend was concerned with: "Are we dealing with muni ci pal problems? "I am of the belief that we are dealing with all known predictable problems.

I am also of the belief that some people would li ke to include a few other things when the time is right. lfthe honourable member is aware of some problems whic h he think s we haven't included which are predictable and he would let me know, I will take them up with our technical people and find out whether they think that that is a real problem.

I also am of the opinion that the Un ited States authorities and the Canadian authorities should get together on these recommenda tions and then that the Un ited States withhold proceeding until there is an understanding and that the work be proceeded with in such a way that we don't find ourselves with a tim e lag between them proceeding and us proceeding. I agree with my honourable friend; I welcome his observations in that connection and I assure him that they will be gi ven weight to when the di scussio ns are bei ng held. MR. CHAIAN: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. JORGENSON: Mr.

Chai rman, the Min ister remind ed me of a killd eer using that old broken win g trick trying to lead me away from the nest. We went to the Argenti ne; we dealt with the bilingu al question; we sort of manoeuvred him into the Jet and Nordiqu e situation but the fact is in this particu lar instance, what we are dealing with is a problem that the Americans created for themselves through the activities of the corps of engineers. I have been in the area, not on one occasion but on a number of occasions - the most recent was early this year - and have spoken to the Americans.

I have spoken to the people who live in the area and have some knowledge of what is going on. What really happened is that the corps of engine ers, because they had a fairly substantial allocation of money at one time or another, they decided they had to spend it all. That is one of the features oft he American system of government - and I am not going to criticize them - but that is one of the features of the American system of government that lends itself to that sort of a problem.

Because they had this allocation, they spent a great deal of money draining areas that should never have been drained and people in that area wi ll tell you they should never have been drai ned. -(l nterjection) Yes, and I daresay that in some instances we have done that but I think that we can learn a great deal from their mis takes.

Certainly the American Wildli fe Federation found out a number of mis takes that they made in drai ning the pothole country of the m id-western States only to find that that pothole country could not grow crops; the soi l was too alkaline as a result of water that had stayed there fora good many years. The American Wi ldlife Federation they follow in behind them; they buy up that land and then redyke it again. So that's the kind of mi stake that I don't think is necessary for us to make. The fact is, that is their problem.

They have drai ned water into the Roseau River basin at a much faster rate than it can get out of there and they are going to do what is very natural under the ci rcumstances, they are attempting to transfer their flood problems to some place else and there is only one place that they can transfer that problem and that is to the Canad ian side. Now, we are going to be the recipients of that additional flow of water.

What the Min ister did not deal with and is one of the problems that I mentioned and that is the degree of erosion that will take place on the Canadi an side as a result of the increase and the greater velocity of the flow of the water that wi ll take place. I think that that is a problem and I wonder if a study of that kind of erosion has taken place and if that is contemplated in the mi tigating plans that are about to take place.

One other- the Mini ster invited me to make suggestions that I thought migh t occur and are not contemplated at this time - I am not sure whether I can accept the Min ister's argument with respect to the dif ference between the Garrison and the Roseau River situa tions. I mentioned at the outset that there is one essential dif ference and that is the transfer of water from one river basin to another. Otherwise, the situati ons are parallel because the pollution that the government were concerned about, was the pollution that was going to be created as a result of irrigation along the Souris basin.

Well, there is nothing to say that the lands that are now being cleared - and there is a considerable amount of it in that Roseau basin just south of the border -w ill not be subject to irrigation in the very short time. Even if it is not subject to irrigation, the chemicals that are part and parcel of modern farm ing today will be applied and they, by themse lves, wi ll create pollution whether or not there is irrigation.

If there is irrigati on, I think the expectancy is that there will be even greater pollutions and I am not sure whether any thought had been gi ven to the possibil ity of extensive irrigation in that particular area. As near as I can make out, it lends itself to ir rigation. But the pollution, I thi nk, will come as a result of the application of chemicals as mu ch as it will result as the application of chemicals in the Souris basin along the Red River. In my opinion, there is no essential di fference.

The only di fference that does exist is that in the Roseau basin there is not a transfer of waterfrom another river basin into the Roseau basin. The water that will come in there is essentially the water that would reach there in any case under normal circumstances with the exception of the low-lying swamp areas where the water would remain. 3385

Wednesday, May 25, 1977 The Min ister also mentioned the im proving of some farm land and I presume that it is contained in the map just east of the vil lage of Roseau River itself.

The very fact that they are intending to drain more low-lying land into the Roseau River would add to the flood problems. ! am not suggesting that the flood problem is the greatest one that we are going to have to face, but the drainin g of that land, unless there is some way of holding that water back at ti mes of high water levels on the Roseau River, could contribute greatly to the increase in the flows from the Roseau Rapids down to the flatlands in the Municipality of Franklin between Green Ridge and the Red River.

In addition to that, I don't know whether the Min ister mentioned what was going to happen to that portion of the river on the Roseau Rapids. lt is a very scenic area; I think that its preservation would be much desi red.! wonder if the Min ister could give the House some assurance that nothing will be done to destroy the scenic beauty of that area or its value as a vacation or a tourist attraction. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Min ister. MR. GREEN: Fi rst, Mr.

Chai rman, I am advised that given the mitigating works, etc., that there will be no destruction of the scenic view that my honourable friend is referring to. I do think , Mr. Chai rman, that despite my honourable friend not bei ng able to see it, that there is a di stinction that I would see between the Garrison Dive rsion program and the Roseau program.

The Roseau program is essentially a means of flood control in the United States so the same water would flow, the same amount of water would flow and, if anything, I gather it would be for a shorter time on the fields in the Uni ted States than in the absence of the flood control works. ! am just contemplati ng now, but if it is flowing out of the United States faster because they have straig htened out channels, etc., to get the water out quicker, then it would be on fields in the Un ited States for a shorter period of time than it would be under the present tim e and therefore would have less opportunity to pick up pesticides and chemicals on fields in the Un ited States than it does now.

The other thing is that contrary to what was my expectation and what was the expectations of many who com plained about the Garrison di version, the pesticides appeared to be the least of the pollutional problems that was contemplated by the Garrison di version. Again , I am hoping that Mr. Weber wi ll listen for a moment so if I am wrong, I will be corrected- that the pesticides and fertilizers were the least of the pollutional problems that were predicted by the Garrison diversion. He says that's correct so I am safe on that.

The most substantial pollutional problems would take place as a result of the water being spread for irrigation purposes and then com ing through the ground and back into the groundwater system and then back into the So uris and that they would pick up the di ssolved solids , etc., whic h were not the result of chemical applications on the soi l but as a result of the soi l content itself. So our case on the Garrison was based entirely, or if not entirely most substantially, on pollution. We were able to invoke that

section of the treaty which said that the country shall not pollute water flowi ng from one country to another. We did not make a case for pollution on the Roseau River and I doubt whether trying to make a case would have been conside red far-fetched. lt would possibly have been consider ed merely an attempt to stop the program whic h is not what is envisaged by the Boundary Waters Treaty.

The Boundary Waters Treaty is intended to facil itate a normal activity provided there is no danger to the receiving count Now, ry. the honourable member makes the point which I can't really argue with, that really they put themselves in this jam and now they are asking us to get them out of it. But I have heard that on numerous occasions from farmers in the Province of Manitoba who talk about the fact that the problems they are having have been caused by other drainage works that we have been constructi ng and, therefore, we have to construct new works to undo the problems that we have created.

If that is so prevalent in both jurisdic tions, I would have to say that it is a normal activity. Now, that doesn't mean that I won't agree with the honourable mem ber's criticism of what the army corps of engine ers did but the treaty, I think, properly interpreted, would not gi ve Manitoba much of a position to try to reject them doing anything about that program. Therefore, we are left with - how do we deal with the effects of what is occurring? The Study Board dealt with it; found that these mi tiga ting features would take care of it and that being the case, the International Joint Commis sion made a report.

In the Garrison case, the more they studied, the stronger the case that there was pollution to our side of the border. And the International Joint Comm ission - and it's sti ll pending before the International Joint Commis sion - any notion that we are out of that problem is not correct, and I have never said that we are out of it. The only point that I have made, Mr. Chairman, is that I believe that Manitoba handled that problem in the best way of achieving satisfactory results. That there were no other ways of achievi ng better results. I sti ll believe that to be the case.

I know that is the subject of arguments. But we're not out of the problem of the Garrison. it's before the International Joint Comm ission. The International Joint Comm ission wi ll not take cognizance of a di spute between Congress and the President. And they wi ll come out with a report perhaps saying that with the mi tiga ting works sugg'ested, the Province of Manitoba has to receive these waters. I'm hoping they wi ll not do that.

I'm hoping they wi ll say that the United States cannot proceed with this program by using the Red and the Souris River because there is demo nstrable pollution effects and the mi tiga ting factors do not 3386

Wednesday, May 25, 1977 appear to undo them. As a matter of fact they are rather speculative in their recomm endations. So I'm not going to convince my honourable friend. I think that negotiations the way they were conducted :-vith regard to the G_�rrison have led to as reason at.. le results as we could expect. I'm suggesti ng that If we took the position on the Roseau, that we say that the project cannot proceed because of pollution to Manitoba waters, that we would not have been taken serious ly. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 84(a). The Honourable Memb er for Roblin. MR. J. WALL V McKENZIE: Mr.

Chairman, I thank the Minis ter for the works and construction and reconstruction and mai ntenance that's mentioned in his report here dealing with the Fish ing River and the Shanty Creek in Roblin constituency, but the watershed - (I nterjection) - No, 1. .. A MEMBER: That's the strict orders of your Premier, your boss. You told the people in Roblin, you elect this guy, you get nothing. You migh t as well put that on the record. MR.

McKENZIE: But the watershed area on the east side of the Riding Moun tains which drains all the water into Lake Winnip egosis is an ever-growing concern of, as the Min ister knows, most people in the area and the major dr ains and the major rivers and there are many of them in the area are presenting major problems due to erosion, and they're becoming jam med with floati ng debris, and 1 suppose the deepening and cleari ng of these natural waterways will eventually have to be considered, even though the present day costs seem to prohib itive.

The Local Government Dis trict of Mountain and the Rural Municipality of Ethelbert don't have the fi nancial resources nor do they have the tax base to deal with the major problem . Nevertheless we can't walk away and leave it. There was a day when the government did come in on a fifty-fifty basis, through what is known as the draina ge main tenance di strict system and through the old grant and aids structure and certain works were done and a lot of money was spent in the area, but. .. A MEMBER: That was in the good old Tr y days. We changed it in anticipation that you were going to take over. MR.

McKENZIE: Anyway the drains and the classification and drains in the area may need to be re-exami ned. I think, was it one to first and second order drains are the 100 percent responsibil ity of the mun icipal ity and then from third to seventh order drains are declared provincial waterways, but they're a 100 percent responsibi lity of the municipali ties. So I just wonder, the di version of the north duct is it, at the Cowan area, if any studies or any ongoing moneys can be expended for that di version whic h the people in the area are sti ll asking about - the north duct in the Cowan area there, in the Drake.

If, in fact the people are just going to have to try and get along the best way they can, or does the Minis ter and the government have some long range program to go in and deal with that problem which gets more serious every year? The other one that is constantly brought to my attention is the problems of the river that flows through the Villa ge of Ethelbert there where one lady's home is about ready, I daresay, the nexttime there's a flood in there some of her buildi ngs will be tumblin g down into the river. The villa ge certainl y doesn't have the resources to deal with that problem.

Some say that it should be div erted away from the dwellings. I just wonder if the Min ister has any suggestion or thoughts in mind regarding the problems of that watershed. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chai rman, what I can tell the honourable mem ber is that for every problem that he will give me in that particular area, I will gi ve him three in another area. And we will never catch up with all of them. There. wi ll be various means used to try to bring pressure on the Provi ncial Government with regard to drai nage. I believe we've been sued to construct draina ge. We've been sued to stop draina ge.

We've had petitions at our office. I meet with more delegations on this issue than on any other issue. We've had the hig hways stopped, or people barricad ing the hig hways or suggesting that they're going to get drai nage. We have had people com ing in and making very decent representations with regard to their problems. And as a result of all of these thi ngs and an assessment of need, we take the avai lable money resources and we proceed with the program.

As to the particula r problems that the honourable memb er is referring to, he'll just have to give them to me and I'll have to take note of them and tell them where they stand on our priority list, if at all.

I wi ll have to confess to my honourable friend that my track record in this respect for requests of this kind is to say no more often than to say yes, not because I'm mean, but because there is an assessed program whic h we are proceeding with and we prefer to try to proceed on the basis of assessed need rather than on the basis of petitions or drastic actions such as; we are not going to pay our taxes unless we get the draina ge or thi ngs of that nature.

We do listen to all groups and I think that for those groups who have come in, I think that they will have to say that despite the fact that they did n't get it, we did respond to them. In many cases we prepared cost benefit studies to show that it just wasn't viable. The Duck Diversion, for instance, the Duck Mountain Diversion, my department tells me just by note at this ti me, that it has not been possible to proceed with on the basis of the cost benefit. The Member for Pembina has pursued programs and I'm not arguing about that.

I think that that's a duty of the honourable member and I think that it should be done, but I think that he will have to agree that eventually one has to decide just what level of spending you're going to participate in and 3387

Wednesday, May 25, 1977 we do make knowledge the programs that we are proceeding with and conti nue to hear delegations and continue to see whether there shouldn't be readjustments of priorities. I would not expect that the honourable member would want us to go back to the pre George Hutton program, whic h he has referred to because there wi ll be less money availa ble to the muni cipalities if we do that. The program adopted with regard to third and secondorder drain s was an im provement of provincial participation.

At the same time as that program was adopted, or relatively concurrently therewith, the Conservative government en acted the watershed authority legislation, which permit ted the establishment of watersheds which could result in a much more com prehensive drai nage program based on several muni ci palities and based on a total program, not the Provincial Government working on a third order drain and the munici palities not doing whatever had to be done on the other drai ns. The difficu lty with the watershed concept was that generally upstream munic ipalities were not anxious to participate.

The water flowed out of their constituencies down into the downstream mun icipal ities. As the concept proceeded the admin istration would not create a watershed unless they had unanimi ty. We abandoned the unanim ity rule and said that where there was reasonable grounds for creating a watershed we would do so and we did so. That doesn't end all problems. We did so with the one in the Neepawa area, the Whitemud Watershed. There is one in Turtle now, Turtle River Watershed and there's a third one - Turtle Mountain Watershed, and we are working on others to try to convince them to go into watersheds.

In whic h case the programs are more effective because they are comprehensive programs and secondly, the provincial con tributions are more generous because we have to that extent elevated our water program in that we've added to the water program the amount that was being spent on watersheds. So that was an augmen tation of the amount of moneys that we were spending. At least that is my im pression. I don't know which watershed the honourable mem ber's riding would be in.

I don't know whether there has been di scussed with that group of com munities - (I nterjection) - We ll, I think that that's really the thing that the honourable member stJould pursue and push and help us with. lt will accrue to the benefit of anybody and I think that it is a good program. lt doesn't stop problems. I think that we are now being sued in the Whitemud Watershed because somebody doesn't like what the watershed authority is doing. But that's not surprising to me, Mr. Chai rman, we have been sued. This government has been sued numerous times. We've been sued for draina ge.

We've been sued for taking over the forestry complex. We've been sued to stop the Churchill River Diversion. If the government was to become inactive every time they were sued, they wouldn't be here for a day. So I'm not saying that it stops all problems or solves all di sputes but it is, in the view of the water people, a more effective way of proceeding. lt's not an invention of any political party. lt was the Conservatives that put the legislation into effect. it's legis lation that ma kes sense. They were reluctant. I'm not being critical.

They were reluctant to require a watershed where one mun icipal ity did not want to be involved. We did not feel that that should stop the concept of a watershed any more than it should stop the concept of the province spending money on draina ge because some city ridi ngs migh t say we don't want it spent. I mean that would be horrendous. If we said that some city rid ings don't want some drai nage money spent, and therefore it shouldn't be spent. Well that would not be correct.

So we take the same position with regard to watersheds that the people that are the source of the water are as much responsible for dealing with the questions of the problem as the people who are the recipien ts. And we have three watersheds in existence, the Whitem ud bei ng the fi rst one. I would urge the honourable member to both give me his in di vidual problems, which he has done from time to ti me, and I think that although he will not say that I've given him positive results each time, I don't think I've ignored his question and I won't this time either. MR. McKENZIE: Mr.

Chai rman, I just have one more question for the Honourable Min ister. lt's related to the proposed construction of the dam at Grandview. The old earth-fi lled dam that's been placed there by the town for many years and has been the source of backing up the water. There is a lot of people in the area . are concerned that when the dam is constructed that the river won't be dredged and that earth fill removed from the river. I wonder if the Minister has any idea. Do they plan on dredging it and removing that fi ll that has been placed in the river over the years for their water supply? MR.

GREEN: Is the honourable member asking me whether the existi ng residue is going to be removed? I don't know. The Director-General of Water Resources tells me that it wi ll be part of the construction costs, so that it will no doubt be dealt with. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mem ber for Gladstone. MR. JAMES R. FERGUSON: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fi rst, I'd lik e to assure the Honourable Minis ter that I've no vested interested in either the water or the lawsuit that's taking place between his department and my constituents.

However, I think that we are faci ng the realization this year that water storage is probably as important or more imp ortant than getting rid of it all. Unfortunately Watershed No. 1, which is the Whitemud, has accomplished a great deal, has done up to this point. But unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anywhere for the water to go once it reaches a certai n point and this apparently has defi nitely created a problem, this bottleneck. 3388

Wednesday, May 25, 1977 But, I would lik e more or less to impress on the Min ister would be back further in the area, back beyond the ridge of the Arden Ridge, or even No. 5 Hig hway, wherewith as eries ofverysmall dams a considerable amount of water could be held back, especially south of No. 4 Highw ay in the vicin ity of the Arden Ridge. -(I nterjection)- This is all in the watershed, yes.

Consequent ly, in an area between ten, twelve mile s, there are about six creeks and they all come out of the sand hil ls, they all come out of m us kegs, and they also come out of a very narrow, they normally come out of a valley or something along this line which wouldn't take very much for quite a major restriction. Here again this land is pretty well all owned by the state and there is no loss. lt's muskeg. lt's wasteland in any event.

And with the advent of irrigation which I feel is comin g - as a matter of fact in the im med iate area south of Gladstone are two units already installed at a cost of about a half a mill ion dollars a piece and I don't know where they're going to get the water to make them go. Possibly now that we've had a few rains there mi ght be a bit of water, but this will require a considerable amount of water for irrigation. lt's for potato plants and again ties in with the McCai n plant at Portage whereby there are about 15,000 acres worth of contracts being let, supposedly by the fall of 1978.

There is a demand for the product if this plant goes ahead. lt will certainly be a benefit to our area and ir rigation is someth ing that has been proved that we are going to have to have because ofthe fact that this year we just about had our backs to the wall when these rains came. I notice by the sheet that we received the other day that the watershed program I guess is basically cut to nil. I see a couple of small projects in the RM of North Norfolk and I guess that is a couple oft he areas that are not involved in the suit. This may have some beari ng on it.

I would lik e the Minis ter, if he would, to clarify if there has been a complete stoppage of all the programs in the Whitemud or what the program is going to be this year, as it is not shown on the sheet. Again, I would lik e to im press on him that there seems to be a problem this year also in the management of the grass marshes. Some of it I guess is under the Ducks Un limi ted. Here again' the water was let out of the marsh this spring.

I don't think there was even enough in there probably to hold the ducks and the geese. lt seems very foolish that as of last year when the water was back right from Woodside up to practically McCreary, running all over the place, that this year when we were in short supply that the logs, as I understand, were out of the dams, and the water was just drai ned. There was no spring run-off, as you are all quite aware. So with these few words, Mr. Chairman, I would await the Min ister's reply. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chair man, I am happy to hear the honourable memb er say that the watershed authority has accomplished something. lt appears to be a better devised program than what existed before. Because I am admit tedly not very cognizant of what goes on in these areas. And therefore when I hear from the honourable member that it's doing someth ing, then I am pl eased. Most of the things that he mentioned, in terms of programs, could be the program of the watershed authority and I think that the watershed authority should consider them.

Our advisor s to the watersheds will also take note of what you said, and I wi ll ask them to give consider ation to them proceeding . I would in dicate that the watershed programs are not listed in the volume that my honourable friend has. So the fact that they are not mentioned doesn't mean they are not proceeding. I believe that there was a letter sent to the authorities telling them that the lawsuit will have some effect on the program. That was sent in error, in my opinion .

I believe we have communi cated to the authority that we are not going to, in any way, delay the im plementation of watershed programs by virtue of the lawsuit. So the honourable mem ber can rest assured that the lawsuit will not stop the program. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Memb er for Fort Rouge. MR. LLOYD AXWORTHY: Thank you, Mr. Chair man. Mr. Chair man, I wanted to come back to the questions that the Min ister raised in relation to the present status oft he Garrison negotiations. I think that he said some thi ngs which I think should be clarified.

Probably there is some confusion at the present moment on Garrison because of the actions taken by Presi dent Carter in recommending certain mi tigation measu res. I think that certainly from the public point of view there is an assumption that the problem has been dealt with. I would like to have the Min ister clarify more precisely the status of, and I would perhaps pose the questions to him in this way.

That, as I understood his remarks, he is sti ll going on the basis that the full Garrison Diversion program in the Un ited States is what the IJC is itself considering and that they have not had any further terms of reference given to them as to what would be the iact of the mi tigation ame ndme nts by President Carter. So that in fact, the IJC is sti ll assessing the program as it was originally proposed and those proposed mi tigation efforts are not part of their terms of reference. If that is the case, Mr.

Chai rman, I would lik e to ask the Min ister if in fact the question of those proposed mitiga tion efforts are themselves being exami ned in terms of their potential im pact, that, as the Min ister alluded to, certain questions were raised I believe by the Chairman of the Manitoba Environment Council suggesti ng that even with those miti gation efforts it could sti ll have an effect upon the Red River, I believe was the issue that was raised by that Chairman. And that the mi tigation 3389

Wednesday, May 25, 1977 efforts, whi le they would stop waters com ing north, they would not stop the effects of the di version in di fferent kinds of ways affecting Manitoba waters. And agai n, if I understood the Minis ter right, he said that it is wit hin that area that there is a preparedness to negotiate or deal with the Americans.

That once the issue of the major polluting effects are dealt with, either through IJC recommendations or by the actions taken by the Americans unilaterally, that there is an area of negotiation or discussion, compromise or whatever it may be, which would be consider ed as part of the ongoing process that we have with Americans concerning Garris on.

I'd like to have that particular issue clarified for us to determ ine really what is the present status of Garrison in relation to the IJC, and then what has been the flexion, really, I suppose of the public attention if nothing else, as a consequence of President Carter's steps that he has taken, and what are we doing to react to those particular efforts or recomm endations that President Carter has made. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I think that I at all time s, even when President Carter's announcement was made public, indic ated that we are sti ll before the International Joint Comm ission on our original reference. The In ternational Joint Commis sion I thi nk will deal with that original reference. They could make recom mendations with regard to the entire project and use of the Red and the Souris Riv ers. That need not have any effect on what the Federal Government of the Un ited States does with regard to supply of funding for the Garrison Diversion.

So I got no notice from the United States authorities, or from Canad ian authoritie s, that the terms of reference of the IJC have been in any way reduced by virtue of a reduced project in the Un ited States. I am therefore assuming that the International Joint Commis sion is sti ll dealing with the entire project. But the International Joint Comm ission doesn't fund pr ojects and if they made a recommenda tion to the two governments, there would sti ll be the dis cussions between the two governments as to how the United States intends to proceed.

And therefore I welcome the announcement on the basis that the opinion in the United States at the executive authority, which is im portant - I'm not fully conversant with United States politics but it's not all-imp ortant but it certainly is iortant. lt could mean that their thinki ng is to not use the Red and the Sou ris as orig ina lly envisaged. If that were accomplished, I would not say that it removes any possible problems to Canada. But I don't think anything can be accomplished that would remove from the Un ited States the possib ility of using their water resources to benefit their conditions.

I rather expect that what was being said by the Environ mental Council is that there are hazards, even with the existing program, through spills out of the low-feed and other accidents which could result in problems to Manitoba. But you know, we can't stop a program because an accident could result in a spi ll. We can raise an objection to a program, which is envisaged to do certain thi ngs. But if a program is not envisaged to do those things and can reasonably be proceeded with on the basis of those thi ngs not happening, then I doubt whether the Canadians will be able to make a very strong position.

As a matter of fact, I think that if it is proceeded with along the lines that has been suggested by President Carter, and if we are able to obtain assurance doubly sure of certain protections which would prevent accidents and whic h could protect any possible effect on the Red, that I wi ll have thought that the Garrison Diversion problem has been resolved in a manner which is beyond that which I thought could occur when we were fi rst faced with it, because there is considerable Canadian position. lt was the Canadian Government that appeared before the International Joint Comm ission and acknowledged that a certain amount of activity is acceptable.

We can argue about whether it's pollution; we can argue about whether it will cause inj ury. lt was the Manitoba position throughout that we look to the United States to keep their comm itment not to proceed in such a way to use the Red and the Sou ris in viola tion of the Boundary Waters Treaty and we say that a deterioration of our water qual ity is a vio lation. If somebody is to say that that is not the case, then it has to be the International Joint Com mis sio n, not us. We say that a deterioration is a vio lation.

That was a point that was made in the Peace Gardens and tha t is the position that we take. lt will have to be an International Join t Comm ission who will reduce our water qual ity as not being a viola tion of the Treaty, not a voluntary reduction by the Province of Manitoba. I think I dealt with all of my honourable friend's questions. The status? The status is unchanged as far as the International Joint Commis sion is concerned, to my knowledge. The results of the International Joint Com mi ssion do not mean a project will proceed.

The International Joint Comm ission could make its recommendations and then the Un ited States could decide that it's not worth proceeding with this type of program and we are going to limi t it to the 65,000 acres which can be dealt with, with the existing installations, without going into further irrig ation in the Sou ris region, and without envisaging further irrigation beyond the 250,000 acres.

Because if my honourable friend wi ll realize that in the Manitoba brief that was presented to the last comm ission hearings, we raised a point which I think has not really been raised strongly before and that is that the total program is not 250,000 acres. The total program is a mil lion acres. The program that is presently envisaged is 250,000 acres and that's the program whic h would use the Red and the Souris, and in which all of the calculations have been based. If they get to a mil lion acres those calculations are consider ably 3390

Wednesday, May 25, 1977 aggravated. And if we can hold it at 65,000, whic h is the installation that is now in place, and which the United States say wi ll not affect the Souris and the Red - And my honourable friend says, "Yes, but there is a possibil ity that can happen." Then our job is to try to prevent the possibil ity, not to prevent the program. MR. AXWORTHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to pursue it, if I mig ht, just a couple of steps further. Because the Min ister ind icates that the responsi bili ty and jurisdiction of the IJC is purely one of making recommenda tions.

Then what we're dealin g in de facto is the decisions of the United States Government as to what they are going to pay for, and therefore what is going to be buil t. Now I think it would be useful and I understand almost just by reading American newspaper reports that the executive branch of that government has ind icated which appropriations they are prepared to expend on the Garrison and that there is some counter-reaction in the Congress.

But that as it now stands, as far as the executive branch is concerned, that there is in effect another project in place, that the origin al Garrison which has been referred to IJC is no longer what we're talking about. We're talking about a somewhat di fferent set of construction arrangeme nts which would not have the di rect flows into the Cana dian waters. That really raises in my mind the question, should there be, in a sense, a secondary reference to the IJC on the basis of that is now what we are dealing with, not what was before. What we were dealing with before is now almost hypothetical or past history.

But what we are now dealin g with is a di fferent project in that any exami nation or assessment that they are making concerning a potential viola tion should be taking both those particular possibil ities into account. Should it be the original one, which I think we would have to concede at least the executive branch of the American Government says we don't want to go ahead with, so that the possib ili ty or likeliho od of it going ahead with it is relatively remote. So that if we can call it Garrison One is somewha t distant or in relative terms not lik ely to be fulfil led.

A much more likely project is the one that has been announced by President Carter. Should that not now be the focus of our attentionconcerning whether in fact that itself inviola tes in any way the treaties, or in fact it will have any im pact?

And I would really just ask by way of inquir y whether that should be taken up with the IJC, considering the latter developments in the Un ited States, and secondly, whether our own officials, or study boards, or those groups that have been set up to examine all the matters pertained in the Garrison, should also now be exam inin g, in a sense, what would be the potential im pacts of the probably more realistic program that President Carter announced some months ago, and which, I expect in the way of politics, will be negotiated with Congress, but would probably be closer to what will happen than the original idea.

So I am really saying again that from the point of view of providing for our own protection, should we be putting, in a sense, an additional reference in to IJC, or ask ing the Canad ian Government to do so, or at least raise that issue with them. And secondly, should we be undertaking our own in iatives in terms of looking at potential effects of the Garrison Two, if you want to call it that? MR. GREEN: Mr. Chai rman, I don't know whether that would make us appear to be too eager to alter the course of politics in the United States. I am not di smissing the idea.

But the Unit ed States Government and the Canad ian Government have a reference to the IJC. That's where we start from. The United States Government, you say, has decided not to proceed. Well let's just carry it forward to show you why I am concerned. The IJC would expect the party that is affected - that is the party that says that they are making a change - to contact it and say, "D o not proceed on this reference. Deal with it as if it contained only the following: A, B, C, D." Let's say that's President Carter's new program. That would be entirely normal.

What I think would be consid ered to be perhaps too eager and presumptuous on our part and I'm not di smis sing it; I'm just asking my honourable friend to consider how he would react if he was the congressional authority - is we go to the International Joint Comm ission and we tell them that the Unit ed States is not intending to proceed. I think they would say, "Well, who are you to tell us how the United States intends to proceed." We are dealing with a reference by the government of the Uni ted States.

What I presume could happen, and I'm not di smis sing it out of hand, is that the Canad ian Department of External Affairs could get in touch with the American counterpart and say, "Are you sti ll - Is it wise to conti nue the reference as is, or is the United States comm itted now to a new program? If so, should we not change the terms of reference before the International Joint Commi ssion? " I'm not certain that that would be a good idea. On the other hand, l don't say that there is anything seriously wrong with doing that. Certai nly, I'll consider it and get in touch with Mr.

Jam ieson and ask him whether that kind of stuff will be considered by him and I'll suggest that it was brought up in the House. At the moment, I have been playing it, as they say, cool. As far as I'm concerned we are sti ll dealing with the program that was referred to the Internationa l Joint Commission. I would not want anybody in the States to get the im pression that we are trying to influence the politics as between the 3391

Wednesday, May 25, 1977 President and Congr ess, and the state government. That is something we have tried to stay away from. We are bound to consider the program that the Uni ted States wants to proceed with, and to see whether it constitutes a viola tion of the treaty obligation. lt is not our province to try to play a role in the United States politics. If it can be done without endangeri ng that position, then I tell my honourable friend that we can certainly consider it. He had another question but I have lost sigh t of it in contemplating the fi rst one. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr.

Chai rman, just in response to that, I agree with the Min ister that we wouldn't want to appear overt in influencing those peculiar congressional arrangeme nts but I think it would be a good idea if we at least sought through External Affairs for them to inquir e with the Executive Branch and so on, what the status is and what they intend to do, at least to the point of view of ensuring that we have proper information as to what the American intentions are and that there is a full reporting of that. Perhaps the issue can then be raised whether it should be an additio nal reference to the IJC.

The second question that I had flowing out of that one is that again , anticipating that - perhaps it may be premature - but anticipa ting that the Carter proposals again have a degree of likelihood to them conside ring that he does control their appropriations or the dir ections of the Bureau of Reclamation, would we be in a position through our own officials or through the Study Board if it is still in being to have a fai rly qui ck abil ity to determine the im pact of the new Carter proposals that we would agai n determine what dangers or hazards or pollutions migh t result from it? MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, I believe that if there were new terms of reference that it would be in the nature - and now I am guessing -t hatthe whole includes its parts and that we have exam ined the whole, therefore we should be able to examine its parts and that the IJC could get from the Study Board fai rly expeditiously information respecting the suggested possible - and I hasten to warn the members of the House - by no means confirmed new program. I do not share my honourable friend's outspoken optimi sm that the executive has decided on this program.

If that happens, then it is to the good but I am not certain that we can be sanguine about that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON: Mr. Chai rman, I would like to make a few comments in regard to water resources here. I would like to mention fi rst that it is about a year and a half ago or going on two years, six municipali ties in the constituency which I represent, we met together to di scuss the possibilities of a watershed area and Mr. Newton was asked to come out. All muni cipalitie s were well represented; the meeting was held; Mr.

Newton explai ned what a watershed was all about, the pros and cons of it, and gave a good detailed di scussion to all mem bers of all councils at that particular meeting. I am wondering, I haven't checked with all the muni cipalitie s, but the understanding was made to the counci l that a resolution from one mun icipal ity if it was sent into the department, would suffice to be able to begin the workings of a watershed area. I am wonderi ng whether or not the department has received such a resolution from any one of the munic ipalitie s from the Constituency of Rock Lake. Another matter that concerns me, Mr.

Chai rman, and that is that some honourable mem bers have been making mention of the various projects that have been conducted by the report that was given to us and if it is conspicuous by its abesence, maybe I can thank the Min ister of Mines for not consideri ng spending so much as a five cent piece in the part of the province from which I come. I am wondering, Mr.

Chairman, I think we have had it very calm and easy here this afternoon, but you know, I think it should be made for the record to this Min ister of Mi nes and Resources that, you know, there is more to Manitoba than just the constituency which he represents and even the few areas in the City of Wi nnipeg. He sort of referred this afternoon when he was talking about watershed area to my colleague from Roblin and related a little bit of it to the City of Winnip eg.

I think that people in the country haven't forgotten when we were government what we did for the City of Wi nnipeg by putting the diversion, the flood diversion, which was a tremendous cost to the Province of Manitoba and I don't regret spending one five cent piece of it while I got criticism from the rural areas. But you know, Mr.

Chairman, this government has been here for about seven years now and I am wonderi ng is there anything in the works, in the plans for Rock Lake, for Pelican Lake, for all the lakes or series of lakes that run from my leader's constituency right down through to Pem bina constituency and the Pembina River finds its way out into the Un ited States. I am wondering if the Min ister has any plans for improving the dams and the conservation of our water schemes in that part of Manitoba. So, having made those few comm ents, Mr. Chai rman, I would be interested in hearing what the Min ister has to say. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chai rman, I want to acknowledge that the people of all of Manitoba but with particular reference to the rurai areas, responded in my opinion very very well to the cost of buildin g a floodway around Greater Winnip eg. I believe that that is the essence of socialism and I believe that the rural people are good social ists in that respect.

With regard to the absence of programs in his area, the five cent piece, I am going to have to deflate my honourable friend. lt was not done by desig n; it just happened and I know that my honourable friend would feel much better if he felt that this was a di rected attack against him . I gather 3392

Wednesday, May 25, 19 77 that in the list of priorities that have been scheduled by the reviewing branch of the agency that there was not a great need, or there was not a high priority item in your area.

If you feel that that is wrong, that's why we distrib ute these, then I think that you should bring it to my attention and don't tell me about Rock Lake, that's not in the drai nage program, but bring to my attention areas that you feel have been overlooked insofar as drai nage is concerned and I would be happy to di scuss them with my honourable friend or with people from the area as I have done with people from other areas. With regard to the watershed, my impression is that there has been no request from any of the muni cipalities for a watershed.

So, I regret to advise my honourable friend that what happened to him did not happen by design. He can't enjoy the satis faction of feeling that he is being purposely di scri mina ted agains t. MR. EINARSON: Well, Mr. Chai rman, it goes back a few years.

I said before, the Min ister's got a pretty good memory; I don't think he'd forget this one but there was a time a few years ago when three full councils from my area came in to meet with the Min ister of Mines and Resources, also had the Minis ter of Agriculture and supposedly the Minis ter of Hig hways, to meet with the Mini ster to see what could be done about Rock Lake at that time . I know I recall the Min ister - I have no regrets for saying so, it doesn't refer to the gentlemen that sit before him this afternoon - but I remember so well, Mr. Chai rman, and this is the kind of support that I was getting.

The Mi nister of Mi nes and Resources he looked to one of his staff membe rs who sat to his right, I believe it was, when he came into the room and saw the three all - I thi nk there must have been about 18 of them there that day and he said to his friend from his department, he says, "Do we know anybody in this group?" Of course, my constituents realized right away that they migh t just as well have stayed at home because this has been the attitude and the approach of this Minis ter of Mines and Resources. He has referred to me as the blackbir d social ist and, you know, Mr.

Chai rman, I must tell you and I have been trying to fin d out and I have been requesting, I think reasonable requests, about some kind of assistance in preserving our lakes and so on out there. They don't mind taking all the money that is com ing for licenses when it comes to fees and so on and he talks about his prioritie s. I think that his government, if they would, instead of buying up land for the preservation of wildl ife, could do someth ing in the way of preservi ng our water supplies because we talk about and can foresee probably a cycle of greater drought than what we have had over a number of years.

Possibly this government - I leave this as a final word - I thin k that they had better start thinkin g more - of course, their time is coming to an end anyway and probably we're going to have to take that responsibil ity - to give greater consider ation to water preservation of our lakes and so on throughout this province. Not only just in the areas that the Minis ter wants to design this for to suit hi mself politic ally but I think for the whole of Manitoba. Thank you, Mr. Chai rman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Memb er for Pem bi na. MR. GEORGE HENDERSON: Well, Mr.

Chair man, I heard the Mini ster say that the people of Manitoba were what he called "good socialis ts" - they didn't min d building the dam around Winnip eg. I wish that the mem bers on that side and the Min ister himself would be as - what wi ll we say - as good social ists and help to build the dam ar ound Carman. This is something that came up very much in the last number of years; they didn' t have a problem this year; nobody really had it because of the dry spring but it is something that's going to recur again.

The people are going to be back in here again just as sure as I'm standing here that this flooding will occur again at Carman because that area west of Carman has had many sloughs draine d, they have had government road allowances with bigger culverts and better di tches put in, there's been a lot of bush taken out and if they get an excessive rainfall at the time the snow is melti ng, the conditions are such that there will be flooding in Carman.

To compare the number of floods there was over the last hundred years is really a wrong way to look at it now because I am sure that if we have the same type of conditions that we had over the past numb er of years, we really would have more floods the way that country has been drai ned there. 1 would lik e to go on record too as favouring the watershed idea in that area. I know that councils haven't agreed on it yet but personally I think it is something that will happen .

When you see everybody drai ning their di tches from further up or taking out bush and these things, it's just going to make the situation worse and they're going to have more flooding down stream. So I think that we're going to have to accept the watershed idea in the rural areas. There's another thing that I have talked about ever since I came in here and as I look at Manit oba and the years ahead and what wi ll be happening, I see that we have great tracts of land that's going under pavement each year and there's a certain amount going under housing and there's more being bought up for wildl ife.

I do see that good cultivated land is going out of production and that irrigation and farming more intensively is going to be what is going to happen in the years ahead because they aren't making any more land and it seems to be di sappeari ng all the time and I can't see but what it will keep di sappearing. 1 see that area down through there all around Carman and south of Portage, right down around Win kler and Altona and Morden, I see that . A MEMBER: And Se lkirk. 3393

Wednesday, May 25, 19 77 MR. HENDERSON: ... as land which is very suit ed to special crops and row crops and irrigation will be in there in the years to come and I don't think there is any doubt about it.

The type of soi l that we have down there is very suited for growing special crops and when you're growing things lik e potatoes and that, to be able to have nice loamy soil that isn't polluted with stones or boulders or, you know, a type of earth that digs so when these automatic machi nes come along either to thin your beets or to work your potatoes so that they can handle the soi l in such a way that they can do it. There are only certai n types of soil that really is adapted to these special crops like potatoes and that.

We have it down there so it is only a matter of time until irrigation wi ll be in in that area. That's why I was really di sappointed that we didn' t go ahead with the concept of two dams at that tim e but probably the people in the States were more farsighted than we were; they wanted to go ahead with thei rs and it was a good thing that we did n't stop them. I think that it wi ll happen in the years to come that we wi ll have the·two dams and that country will be irrigated. lt also has other attractions because we find people nowadays that only want to work 30 and 32 and 36 and 40 hour weeks.

There's an awful lot of time spent on recreation and on every lake there is, all the cottages are sold and people are looking for more lots and they are driving hundreds of mi les to be at resorts. I say if we had a dam .. . Pem bil ier dam south of Darli ngford in that area, that there could be a great tourist attraction there where we could take in a lot of money from the States as well as from people even from Winnip eg because in that area there it would sti ll only be about 90 mil es from Winnip eg. lt could be a very nice attraction .

I think the way lifestyle is changing that there is no doubt in the world but this sort of a thing will take on prominence. I think myself that this government has had too many other priorities that haven't been as good for the country as if they had spent more money on we'll say water conservati on and proper drai nage.

I know it is quite a thing to be talking about dams and at the same time talking about irrigation, you know, but if you don't hold this water back at a time when it's running off, you haven't got it for other uses during the summ er and we just have to have dams to hold it so as to be able to do this .

No matter what special crop you grow, there are certain ti mes when moisture is very critical to that crop or else it will go back very much. lt's just like tomatoes or corn, any of these thin gs, when they are just com ing to the canning stage, if there is an exceptionally dry spell and there is no water, the qual ity is reduced and they can't put out choice quality. In order to be able to do this, they are going to have to have water that they can add at certain time s. In that area already, even though there isn't the real supply of water that we would like there, we find there are many people irrigati ng.

We fi nd, along by Carman, that they are piping it out from what there is in the river and they are using it and we find north of Wink ler they are using it for irrigation so the people who are trying to go ahead who are aggressive are trying to move in that dir ection. They see there's potential there. I just hope that the government would be doing something on that li ne. I would like to say that I am glad to see that finally they plan on going ahead with the McEachern Dam this year. lt's been a long time si nce that started and I hope that it is builtt his year.

I just realized by talking about the Pem bilier Dam, I know it's many years now si nce we started, but even if you started now, it would be so long before it would be completed even if things did go ahead that the people would be really willin g and wanting to accept it then because I know that the communi ties and the munici palities have many meeti ngs now. The Pembina Development Corporation and these larger organizations are in favour of the principle now and want to go ahead with it. lt is just a matter of getting a government to go ahead with it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR.

ARNOLD BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would lik e to go on pretty much the same topic as the Member for Pembina was talking about and that is the construction of the Pem bil ier and the Pem bina Dams. I would just lik e to ask the Mini ster if he has any information regarding the start of construction on the Pem bil ier Dam? Could he give us some type of information as to when North Dakota is ready to go ahead? Another concern that I have is that the Pem bili er Dam is to be constructed at a lower height than was orig inally planned in the original study.

I wonder if the Min ister could tell us how this is going to affect future development regarding irrigation and supplyi ng water to the Pem bina Triang le? I wonder if the Manitoba Government have sig ned an agreement with the North Dakota Government as far as construction of this Pem bil ier Dam is concerned. But I think that we must go far beyond flood control only and start thinkin g more about water conservation. If we're going to start talking about water conservation then we have to start thinking about the two dam concept.

The area was very dry this year and there was a number of towns that were very concerned about their water supply and this certainly would assure a water supplyfor most of the towns up in that area. The government seems to have found mil lions of dollars for development in Hecla Is land and I believe that to date some ten mil lion dollars has been spent on that project.

And this certai nly would have gone a long way in providing flood control and also providing a source of water for the area whic h I represent and not only myself but the Mem ber for Pembi na, the Memb er for Rock Lake, all these areas are affected . You certainly would have been able to provide a source of water and also 3394

Wednesday, May 25, 19 77 provide a recreational area for the most densely populated area in rural Manitoba. As already was mentioned these people have to drive more than 200 mi les to go to any lake of any size whatsoever and this certainly would have brought a recreational area right to their back door. A guaranteed supply of water would also ind uce many ind ustries into the area and here again we're talking I suppose of food processing ind ustries.

The area now is the major supplier of vegetables in Man itoba and many dollars in freight could be saved if these vegetables could be processed right where they're grown. I think one thing that is interesting to note is that it costs between $60 and $70 an acre now to get your beets transported to the plant in Winnip eg. The cost of freight is rising so high that that indus try is in serious danger. We just won't be able to afford to grow beets if freight costs keep on rising the way they have. So plants will have to be located closer to where these crops are grown.

In order to get that type of industry in then we do need a large supply of low cost water. Irrigation of course complements this type of ind ustrial growth that would occur if we had an avai lable source of water. The Min ister has always stated that we must have a cost-benefit ratio before he will proceed. Well, it's very di fficult to get a cost-benefit ratio and as far as the second dam is concerned. lt's relatively easy on the first dam because right now we're thin king in terms of flood control only.

Butt he second dam we are thinking of in dustrial growth; we're think ing irri gati on; we're thinking of new ind ustry and the jobs that would be created. Yes, we're really thinking in terms of survival of that whole area. So it's very diffi cult to obtain a cost-ratio benefit. But we know that it is there. So we would like the Min ister to take these things into consideration and hopefully come up with a mo re favourable attitude as far as the second dam concept is concerned. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 84(a) (1 ). The Honourable Min ister of Mines. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I just want to indic ate to my honourable friend that the status of the Pem bil ier Dam is that the St. Pau l Dis trict Corps of Engi neers department of the Army has sent the report cal led Feasibili ty Report for Flood Control and related purposes, Pemb ina River, North Dakota. That report is in the hands now of the Un ited States State Department and I gather the Un ited States State Department will in itia te a meeting with the Canadian State Department to consider the report and whether or not it can be imp lemented.

I want to acknowledge my honou rable friend's im plied endorsement of the Manitoba Development Corporations' activities with regard to Morden Fine Foods, which have for the last five years borne the brunt of deficits every year on the statement of the Manitoba Development Corporation resulting in losses every year, whic h results in red ink on the Manitoba Development Corporation which I know the member endorses because it is a matter of survival of a processing plant in the area which he represents. MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I asked a question in regard to the height of the dam.

The orig inal study indic ated -I forget just exactly what the height was going to be - but I know that the height of the dam is supposed to be lower. Now I just wonder how this is going to affect getting the water into the Pembina Triangle, getting it into our area, if the level of the dam is lowered. MR. GREEN: My engine ering advic e is that regardless of the design that the honourable mem ber is referring to the water will sti ll be able to be channelled into the Winkier area, that this will facili tate it. MR. BROWN: I'd lik e to go into a dif ferent area.

As you know the area that I represent probably has as many drai nage problems as any constituency in Manitoba because of the nature of the area along the Red River. I would lik e to say that I am very pleased that we're going to complete the Dead Horse Creek this year. I believe that this has been under construction for 17 years. I myself have been involved with this project at least for 30 years, so it dates way back. And you have no idea how much pleasure I take out of seeing the completion of this particular program. - (I nterjection) - No, it's my area.

And I'm also very please pleased to see that the Rempel Drain is going to be proceeded with although this of course is not going to affect nearly as many people. But I wonder if the Min ister would be able to tell me when they are going to start tendering on these two projects. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chai rman, they will be let between Apri l 1st, 1977 and March 31st, 1978. That's the year of the Estima tes. I gather that they will be done during this year. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mem ber for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I must tell the Honourable Min ister that I rise reluctantly and enter his debates for the second time because, on both occasions I wish to take issue with him and let him know that I am offended by his stand-pat budget that he has put before us.

I say that recognizing that I and my Leader and my party have every intention offorming the next government, forming the next government certainly with the help and with the charge that this government has been wasteful in its expenditures of money, has been extravagant in its dip ping into the taxpayers' pockets for that money and have in many instances placed their money, or the taxpayers' money into mi sguide d projects. But here again, Mr. Chai rman, I find myself taking issue with the Min ister because he's not spendin g enough money. I did that earlier in his Estim ates on his mining policies.

Now 1 find myself doing it with respect to this whole Department of Water Managem ent, Water 3395

Wednesday, May 25, 19 77 Resources. In ju st a very rough check in that stand-pat budget that he has presented on this department, the increases barely cover the normal salary increases; I don't think in fact would cover the kind of inflation that we have to deal with in terms of material that the department has to buy whether it's ti mber or whether it's steel or whether it's the contract nature of the work that they have to do. My engi neer friend here may be able to give me the actual percentage increase in the appropriation of this budget ... A MEMBER: Right now? MR.

ENNS: Yes, rig ht now .... but it looks to be certainly less than 10 percent. lt's someth ing in the order of 7 percent of a budget increase for the Di rectory of Water Resources group. Now that just barely looks after the normal salary increases. lt doesn't look after the higher charges that the department is faced with in terms of building material or contractual oblig ations that it assumes so in fact, Mr. Minister, we are going back. We are going back in terms of the amou nts of public dollars we are dedicating to this particula r activity of government. Mr.

Chai rman, I don't wish to elaborate at any length on those comments that have already been made by other mem bers, but the Min ister is getting the message. lt is really inconceivable that during the whole course of this Min ister's holding of this office and bei ng responsible for this particular aspect of government activity that there has been vi rtually no new in itiativ es. There has been, as we were shown with his report that he handed out, barely a maintenance of exist ing plant with only the odd new project undertaken in seven, eight years of this government's manag ing of this particular department.

Those kind of projects that take time to develop, take time to reach consensus on the areas that they are contemplated, none of them has developed. Mention has been made there has been no new in itiatives taken to further extend the kind of flood protection that we did extend in the Sixties to the major population areas of this province. But the problems that Carman faces, the problems that. a communi ty like Westbourne or Gladstone even face from time to time on the Whitem ud, the problems that Melita faces on the Sou ris, the problems that perhaps even some of the communi ties along the Whitemouth River face.

None of them have been even put forward one step further on the drawing board.

I'd lik e to think that while the Min ister during this Session, particularly earlier when the possibil ity of a very seri ous drought loomed somewhat larger than it does right now, the Min ister at least indi cated, I think in either the Throne Speech Debate or in the Budget Speech Debate, that he had some understanding ofthe necessity for moving forward on some of the conservation projects, some of the dams that have again, in many instances, been talked about and as is always the case take a decade or several decades to get off just from the com muni ty concept onto drawing boards, onto actual plans and then actually negotiate the necessary arrangements whether it's federal participation, provincial participation, or in some instances internati onal participation.

But in the same context, projects such as the Pembi lier that has already been referred to, projects on the Sour is that have been talked about in the past, the departmental files are thick with plans and studies of various projects, Paterson Dam in the constituency of my honou rable friend the Memb er from Arthur, whether or not such projects as the Keys Reservoir should be talked about or be part of the planning that is concerned and eventually resolving the problems along the Whitemud .

You know, even such dams as the Holland Dam should be resurrected because of the di fferent situation and because of a greater need and a greater emphasis that I believe th is department and this particular area of the department should be concerned about in terms of water conservation.

I must tell the Honourable Min ister that in my judgment, the Min ister has - and you know, he made mention of that earlier in the Estima tes that he takes a considerable amou nt of pride in being able to travel that train at 60 mi les an hour and veering it somewhat to the left - and it wi ll always be to the left - and he was of course speaking about his pride and joy whic h is bringing about some fundam ental changes, tax changes in this case, fundamental changes in our policies directed toward the extraction of natural resources and mi neral resources in particular.

But, I want to tell you, when I speak to my farmer constituents, or when the Member from Rocl< Lake speaks to his farmer constituents we do not dis tort, we do not lie and we do not mi slead our constituents when we say that that is a problem that they face and that they will continue to face as long as this aspect of this department is under the hands of this Min ister. This Minis ter's concepts, his mind is totally preoccupied with what he envisions to be greater thi ngs and greater social changes to be made in the policies of min ing and the policies of taxation and so forth.

So when the Member for Rock Lake says that there isn't a nickel in my constituency, he doesn't say it with any vindic tiveness, he just says it as a matter of fact. When we say that this department has just barely mai ntained the necessary plant that was built, built largely for them by a previous aggressive and progressive admini stration then that's a fact because the Estima tes don't lie.

When we say that out of a budget that has grown threefold, virtually fourfold, a total budget that now encompasses some bill ion one hundred and seventy-six milli on dolla rs, that we have not found it possible to dedicate $14 mil lion for the Pem bili er, we haven't found it possible to dedicate three or four milli on dollars for the Boyne River Diversion, we haven't found it possible to resolve the 3396

Wednesday, May 25, 1977 Whitemud flooding problems in that area, well, Mr. Chairma n, my constituents and our rural people understand though at the same time we have money to build airplanes, we have money to build buses, we have money to do many other thi ngs. We have money to drill for mine s, as the Mem ber for St. James indi cated. But I want to tell you, to the person sitti ng in the commun ity of Carman that every other year virtually has water up to his wais t, his priorities are somewhat dif ferent. His priorities are somewhat di fferent. Mr.

Chai rman, I suggested to my honourable friend the Min ister the other day on the other aspects of his mi neral explorations why he wasn't going to win certain seats in the north because of his mining policies.

I can say with much more clarity and with much more conviction why he's not going to wi n the seat for Rock Lake, or why his party is not going to take away the seat of Lakeside, or why in fact the rural representation in the New Democratic Party wi ll continue to be virtually non-existent and will continue to fail to attract the kind of support that if perhaps one looked at more objectively some of the programs, some of the policies of this government, that they deserve.

But it's spelled out in the Estim ates. it's spelled out in the Estima tes of Hig hways. it's spelled out in the Esti mates of Water Control. it's spelled out in the Estima tes that we are concluding at this particular time. We find it harder to believe; rural people find it harder and harder to believe with every rise in the total budget revenues of this province.

We find that there need be no di stortion take place when I can stand up on a platform in my constituecncy and say, "Yes, out of a budget of$250 mill ion, we found it possibl e to ded icate $1 00 milli on for major flood protection works or major conservation dams in the province."And this government with a budget of $1 , 176,000,000 can't find $14 mil lion to buil d a dam; can't find $3 milli on to safeguard a commun ity lik e Carman; can't resolve the problems on the So uris that have been on the shelf in the department for the last ten years, for the last twenty years. Because I wi ll tell you, Mr.

Min ister, they were on our shelf for ten years and we had to tell our rural commun ities and we took the flack, we said, "No, our priorities are such when it comes to protecting 400,000 people as agai nst 5,000 or 10,000 or 30,000 people in Carman, then we'll build a floodway first." We had the same heavy rural representation in that Roblin adminis tration to deal with. lt wasn't particularly easy for rural mem bers to forego the dreams of the Pem bil ier Dam which were there and the McEachren Dam which were there as long if not longer than the floodway was there.

We also told them that in the scale of priorities, these major things had to be done fi rst: the

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-4-67b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 4th hansardpdf 67b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b8aaa408cf3d590fdf88a7cf40122739c59b1805

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