LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 5 June, 1986. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - HIGHWAYS MR. CHAIRMAN, M. Dolin: The Mini ster had his hand up first. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of copies of the revenues and expendit ures that are related to the Hig hways Program and Department. These have been compiled through advice from the Department of Finance. I was referring to them earlier today. They differ substantially from the Member for Pembina's figures. In addition to that, I also have a copy of the staffing changes from this year, both for the construction program and for the various divisions of the department. The

summary of staff years, Mr. Chairman, for the department that is being handed out, if members will notice, in Adminis tration and Finance, there is no change from 19 85-86 to 19 86-87. The critic has a copy of this now in front of him. The Construction and Maintenance area or the Operations and Maintenance area has a reduction of seven SY's. The Planning and Des ign and Land Su rveys area is no ch ange; Engineering and Technical Services, one additional SY; the Driver and Vehicle Licensing is 1.1 4 SY's; and Boards and Committees, one, so a total of 3.38 SY's fewer than last year total. In addition to that - and there is a

summary of those in the other pages, if the members want to look at those. Then in addition to that, I have Expend itures Related to Capital, and you will see - that was the single sheet - a reduction ther e of SY equivalents in th e construction area. These are departmental people who are hired for part of the year in relationship to the size of the construction program. There you will see a reduction from 462, of 48 to 414, and an addition of nine SY's in the LGD Program. These were originally in the past charged to districts, and now will be charged directly to the LGD work.

That's expend itures related to capital, Appropriation 7.(c), where they are more appropriately placed because they do work for LGD's. They were transferred. So there was a deletion of 48, a transfer of nine into this area. So there is a net of 39 SY's equivalents, but these are not actual SY's as we know them in the other permanent departments. A MEMBER: Minus 37. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Minus 39 total net. Ok ay, those are the staff year summaries. MR. CHAIRMAN: Deferring the Min ister's Salary until all other items are passed, I think we can begin on Page 94, Item 1. (

b) Executive Support. The Member for Emerson. 609 MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, based on the information that the Minis ter has just handed out here and under the area of Adminis tration and Finance, under 1. (

b) and including that

section there, under Admin istration and Finance it says that there's no difference in the SY's, no plus or minus. I wonder if the Mini ster could then explain under (

c) and under (

d) and under (e), increase in salaries, if there's no changes in the SY's in there, why there's a substantial difference in those figures? Certainly I can understand under Executive Support, the salaries from 270 to 277, which would appear to me to be a normal increase; when under (

c) we have an increase of over $40,000.00. Certainly that cannot be increases in just normal wages - that's too substantial in my view at least - and the same thing under (

d) Financial Services. We again have a substantial increase there which would indicate to me another person being hired, as well as under (e), where we again have an increase which would almost indicate an increase in staff persons, and then under (

f) in the salaries from 592 to 663. Can the Mini ster indicate whether that is all increase in salaries or whether tha t is additional staf fing employed? If that is additional staff, Mr. Chairman, then I would I want to know, in view of the figures there - you know that's substantial increases. Maybe the Min ister could clarify that? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, basically there's a 3 percent allowance for staff increases right across the board ... A MEMBER: Salary? HON. J. PLOHMAN: . . . of salary increases - so that would account for part of it.

In every case there will be a 3 percent increase that's built into these Estima tes. In addition to that, there is the matter of merit increases that are provided for each year and that is also built into every one of those areas. But ther e is not addit ional staff in any of tho se appropriations. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, the basic increase in salaries in that area works out to about $350,000.00. Is the Minister telling me in that particular

section of Admin istration and Finance there's an increase of salaries to the tune of about $350,000, without any additional staff? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well if that's what it adds up to, Mr. Chairman. The staff years are exactly the same. As I indicated, the provision of an increase of 3 percent plus the merit increases, and, in cases of people leaving, severance pay, things like that are built in. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, then aside from Item (b), under (c), we have $48,000 increase under salaries. That certainly works out to a lot more than 3 percent, something isn't quite right here. Explain this

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 to me, Mr. Minister, because something doesn 't sound right here. What kind of . . . HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman , the memb er is not considering that there is a merit increa se in addition to the 3 percent. So if you add the two together you will get a larger figure than 3 percent increase would indicate on that appropriation. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman , maybe I'm jumping ahead because I'm on (

c) where my major concern is. If the Chairman wants to deal with (

b) first , that 's fine, but I want to pursue this area under (

c) a little further . MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion on (

b) or do you want to move on to (c)? Do you want to pas s (b)? MR. A. DRIEDGER: I'll leave it up to the critic here. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minnedos a. MR. D. BLAKE: Mr. Chairman, ii we could maybe discuss the whole area and then pas s the . MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we can 't pass the item because the Minister 's Salary is in this item . MR. D. BLAKE: No, no, I'm talking about 1.(b). So , quite often we discuss the whole area and then pass the whole thing, but in this case we had better . MR. CHAIRMAN: We will not pass Item 1.

We can pass line by line on Item 1. but we defer the Resolution until the end because of the Minister's Salary . MR. D. BLAKE: Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: So what is your wish to be? Do you want to go line-by-line or do you want to go (b) (c) (

d) and (

e) and (

f) on 1.? What's your wish? MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, I have no argument with (b), I'd like to pursue the area of (

c) at this stage of the game. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to defer (b)? Is that what you are recommending? Or do you want to pass it ? MR. D. BLAKE: That's what he said . Well, we can pas s (

b) and I'll be finished with it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 1.(c) - the Honourable Minister . HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairm an, on that, the question was asked about the increase , and there is a merit increase. I mentioned the 3 percent , and also I'm advised that there was some staff that was added the previous year that were only on there for a portion of the year. This is provision of a full year's salary . Obviously if they came on during a part of the previou s year, there wouldn't have been the full year's dollar s budgeted for or provided for.

In this case, we hav e to provide the fu ll year's dollars. 610 MR. A. DRIEDGER: Okay, ju st t o c larify th at then. Is the Minister telling me that additional staff above last year 's estimates were higher th an mid-term in this departm ent and th en , all of a s udd en, we 're going to deal with the people th at were hired last year in this year's estimates, and he's telling me there 's no change in th e SYs? HON. J. PLOHMAN: As I have indic ated , I believe there was an assistant to the Intern al Auditor that was added the previous year.

The SY was provided for, but only the dollars for a portion of the year for the salary because the person on ly filled the position for part of the yea r and that was what was budgeted for . MR. A. DRIEDGER: I have some difficulty , lik e how this is being explained, because when we go through this sec tio n here , in my mind, based on the figures th at are being shown here , as I indicat ed in my opening remarks , there could be an increas e based on the salary increases of anywhere from 5, 6 to 7 SY's from last year .

Are these all part-time that were hired last year and now they are reflecting this year's budget? Becau se the Minister, if he look s at the Estima tes - and. you know , th e increas e in the salar ies in the variou s categories under Administration an d Financ e, it works out to $35 0,000 .00 - now if that is all based on meri t and a 3 percent incr ease , th en we would like to get a little bit more detailed inform ation as to what kind of meri t increases can ther e be to justify $48 ,000 in just the Administrative Services? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman , I think it' s imp ortant that the member s deal with ea ch appropriation separately, as opposed to the globa l figure, and deal with questions under each one . Obviously , 1.(b) , 270 ,000 to 277 ,000 is only a 7,000 difference . Obviously , there aren 't many people in there who are not at the top of their scale. Therefor e, merit incre ases are not necessary to be provided to the same extent as they would in other areas where people who maybe have just started and have to work their way up to the top of the scale. So it would vary from situation to situation. The 1.(

c) is a $48, 000 diffe rence in salaries. Twelve thou sand would be the 3 percent, so that brings it down to 36, 000, and then in the 36,000 would be merit incr eases and the provis ion of a full salary for a staff person who was hired part way into the year the previous year and therefore the total number of dollars for that person 's salary did not have to be indic ate d. MR. A. DRIEDGER: I think I understand , and I don 't want to belabour this. I am just trying to get a picture because I don 't want to get into the details where the Minister has to indicate who has got merit status or not.

But I want to clarify the aspect of it where the Minister has indicated that certa in people were hired on a

part ial bas is last year . Did that reflect in the employment last year, the figures , the additional sta ff, because he indicate s there is no chan ge? Did it indicate last year that ther e was an increase in staff? I don 't think so. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, that is th e case. If we added an auditor or an intern al audit posit ion ,

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 that would have been indicated in previous years' SY's, or the year before, whenever it occurred. In the case of, I believe, the assistant to the internal auditor, that would have been last year. We would have had to include a full SY to fill that position, but not all of the dollars for that position since that person would be hired and was projected to be hired only part way through the year. So we would provide, in the Estimates, fewer dollars obviously than the full salary for the full year. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: The reason why I feel concerned about this and raise this is because we have a department where there has been major cuts, and we have increases in the salary aspect of it. To me, it appears that when you have it just in one aspect of it, Adminis tration and Finance, a $350,000 increase when the total projects within the department have been cut and gutted like our critic has indicated, that is why, to the public and to people like myself, it appears that there must be increases in salaries, and I can't see the justification for that under these circumstances. HON. J. PLOHMAN: But you can now. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: Well, I'm not quite sure in my mind yet but, you know, maybe somebody else can continue on with that. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (c)- pass, or anything further on 1. (c)? Pass. 1. (d) - the Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: I just want to raise that I suppose the Minister's explanation will be the same again here on the increase in the Salaries, that there is no change except that it is is based on merit and a 3 percent increase, and that justifies this kind of thing. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I think, Mr.

Chairman, that it's nearly $500,000 there, if you take 3 percent, that's $15 ,000 of the $29,000 already, then there are merit increases, so that would account for it. MR. D. BLAKE: Under Financial Services, is this where we might dis cuss the audit system that the department uses in auditing various districts or whatever? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, the internal auditor is inc luded under Admin istrative Services. That's the one we just passed. However, if the member wants to discuss that, it's okay with me. Strictly speaking, under Financial Services, the auditor is not located here. MR. D.

BLAKE: Well, we can maybe do it here and move on, or pass it later on. What I am interested in are the audits that have been carried out following what was started last year with the district office, I guess the Carman district, where the two employees were charged and convi cted of various offences. I wonder if the Min ister could tell us if his audit has turned up any more offences or anything of that nature that the committee might be interested in hearing. HON. J. PLOHMAN: No, Mr.

Chairman, the internal auditors has comple ted audits of th e claims 611 inv estig ations area, the program for the mobi lit y disadvantaged in rural Manitoba, driver testing, mobile units, private equipment rentals, and the bridge section. These were all done under the work of the internal auditor this past year, in addition to the specific task that he undertook with the Provincial Auditor as a result of th e ch arges and alle ga tions and subsequent convictions at Carman.

There have been no additional irregularities brought to the attention of any of us, senior staff or myself, as a result of his investigations. He also does, as a result of hi s aud its, make suggestions for improvement in the methods of carrying out business by the department. We saw a number of improvements in the tendering process, the way of allocating hourly work and limits and so on that were put on.

Part of the purpose and function of the internal auditor, of course, to recommend to managers and to work closely with the various sections where the audit takes place, to make them more efficient, and to suggest ways to them that they can perform their tasks quicker and more efficiently, more comprehensively and so on. MR. D. BLAKE: The Minis ter is satisfied that the system of audit that you're using now is working well and providing the necessary checks and balances that they require in a day-to-day operation? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I migh t want to clarif y, Mr. Chairman.

The member is asking if I'm satisfied with the system of audit or with the system of allocating work under the hourly sys tem? MR. D. BLAKE: Well, frankly, I want to cover both. The system of audit that's now in place, that's working well and providing the checks and balances that you consider necessary? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, specifically the internal auditor does specific function audits in areas of the department, in divisions of the department that are determined as to priority by the Deputy Minister, and the internal auditor reports directly to the Deputy Min ister.

He is satisfied with the progress that is being made in that area. This is a new function, just begun in this department in the last couple of years, and it is helping and assisting managers in their work. So it is working well, in addition to the Provincial Auditor which is a more general audit, but they have a th ree­ year plan for the internal auditor to go through all of the areas in the department over that period of time. MR. D. BLAKE: Could the Minis ter tell us what changes have been made in the method of allocating hourly work or small contracts in the areas?

What changes have been made and how are they working out? HON. J. PLOHMAN: As I recall, we made the changes and announced them in the House about a year ago, so I'm not certain that I can recall all of the details on that, but I recall that there were no strict limits for allocating work by tender as opposed to hourly work previously. So, as a result of the reports of the internal auditor and of a committee set up by the department, there

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 have been a number of changes made in that system in that all projects or jobs that are esti mated to be over $75,000 have to be undertaken by formal contract. All those projects between $30,000 and $75,000 are required to be locally advertised in a locally advertised construction order. Projects $10 ,000 to $30,000 are done by invitational tender construction order locally, except in the North where the dollars tend not to get as much work done and there are greater areas to travel.

We have, as a result of a numb er of complaints in that area - and the Member for Min nedosa is aware of those. I think he raised some of them last year. In the Thompson area, we have met with the contractors in that area, equipment rental operators, and have moved that minimum up to $30,000 for hourly work. So in that area projects - or zero to $30,000 - can be let by hourly work according to the hourly rates that are establis hed by the department. Then in the rest of the province, under $10 ,000 can be done through an hourly process or work order of so much an hour on the rates that are set. MR. D.

BL AKE: Just whil e we're mentioning the Thompson area, has enough work been programmed there this year to keep the local contractors reasonably well occupied or fully occupied, so that they will not have to go further afield or move machines out of there? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well I wouldn't say there's enough work to keep everybody busy. There obviously still are some problems, but they were much more pleased with the new system - we lifted the ceiling up to $30,000 for hourly work than they were when we had it at $1 0,000 - so that did improve the situation.

The other point is that this is maintenance work as opposed to construction work in the construction

section of the budget. lt comes under the Operations and Maintenance section, which has increased in each of the last years in terms of total dolla rs allocated. So there has been about the same amount of work - or a little more each year - that is available to these people for maintenance work. I should mention that there was a significant change from'84-85 to'85-86 in terms of the number of dollars, the amount of work that was allocated on an hourly basis, as opposed to by construction orders or tenders.

In 19 84-85, hourly work was over $9 million in all of the districts; in 1985-86, that was down to $5. 1 million, a drop of nearly $4 million. So you can see there was, Mr. Chairman, a tremendous change in that this did have an effect in that more work was put out through tender and construction orders - formal tendering or invitational tenders - as opposed to hourly. So there was a significant effect there, and then there was a significant increase in the corresponding other side of it in the construction order area. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (d)- pass; 1. (

e) Perso nnel Services - the Memb er for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Are there any changes in Personnel Services, any change s in policy there affe cting 612 personnel, Mr. Chairman, that may be of interest to the committee? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well the most significant program under the personnel

section that has been developed in the last couple of years and has taken effect substantially in the past year is the Affirmative Action Program. The target groups under this program have been women, visible minorities, Native people generally, and hand icapped people. Out of the 64 formal competitions for regular positions, there were 20 full­ time people hired in this target group in 1985-86, so that is a substantial number and up considerably from the previous years.

There was also 30 departmental staff hired under the Affirmative Action Program, up from 15 last year and 11 the year before, more than double from the previous year. In the Native hiring contract compliance - that 's in the private sector working with the contr actors to hir e Na tiv e people - we have a significant increase in the number of person weeks of employment created from 524 in 19 84-85 to 677 in 1985-86, and this is done under the work of our Affirmative Action Coordinator, Dan Highway. He's appropriately named and he's doing a good job. I did tell the department, Mr.

Chairman, that I thought he might have got an inside shot at that job, just by his name alone. MR. D. BLAKE: Under Personnel, has there been any change or any significant movement of personnel under the Early Retirement Program that was announced a couple of years ago? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, that took place a couple of years ago. I understood it was fairly effective for that particular year, but it has dropped off and pretty well levelled off in the last couple of years. There's not a significant movement. MR. D. BLAKE: Is that option still available? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: That was just the window that was announced for retirement 55 without penalty. That has not applied the last couple of years, so obviously there's no impact in this year. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (e)- pass. 1. (

f) Computer Services ... MR. D. BLAKE: You had better pass 2.(e)

(2) Other Expenditur es? MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on 1. (f). MR. D. BLAKE: Have we passed 2.(e)? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, 1. (e). MR. D. BLAKE: You're not going to pass 2.(e)? MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(

e) is Traffic Inspection. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Do you want to do that?

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 MR. D. BLAKE: 2.(e)

(2) Other Expenditur es? HON. J. PLOHMAN: You should say 1. (e)(1) . MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, (e)(1), (e)(2)-pass, sorry about that. MR. D. BLAKE: In (f)(1), it's obvious you've added some additional Computer Services. Mr. Minister. Would you explain to us what computer service is now available in the department? HON. J. PLOHMAN: We have substantial increases, as the member is aware. The increase is primarily due, $18 0,000 to additional work in the aircraft maintenance system that has come on line in the past year - or pardon me - is coming on line this coming year.

The Mo tor Transport Board , word proces sing and commercial truck certification system, hardware and software th ere; the Radio Ma nagement System, hardware and software. That's the basic major change. MR. D. BLAKE: Is this new equi pment or just improvements on the existing equipment? HON. J. PLOHMAN: These are new programs. That's why they're indicated in this particular expenditure. The aircraft maintenance system is for the first time going to be computerized.

That is the major expenditure - 11 5,000 out of the 18 0,000, and then there are minor ones in the Motor Transport Board and the Radio Management System. MR. CH AIRMAN: (f)( 1) - the Memb er for Turtle Mountain. MR. D. ROCAN: Mr. Chairman, the radio services, could you elaborate a little more on these. HON. J. PLOHMAN: This is to inventorize the mobile radios, largely, parts, and this is an inventory for the whole government, all departments. MR. D. ROCAN: In other words, are we trying to say that all the mobile telephones in the government cars HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, these are the mobile rad io s, not telephones, that are rented from the Manitoba Telephone System. MR. D. ROCAN: This is in order to connect all the different districts together ... ? HON. J. PLOHMAN: The radio se ction ob viously provide s commun ications between field staff and headquarters, not only in Highways, but the same kind of functions in such departments as Natural Resources. But these particular dollars, we are talking about here, are to provide a better inventory by computer of the parts that are used for radios.

There is no enhancement of the ability basically to communicate between the departments or between the headquarters and field staff. 613 MR. D. ROCAN: In other words, the traffic inspectors can communicate now with the district offices? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, there is no particular move to enhance that. Again, we're talking about computer services. What we're talking about here is the parts inventory for these radios. I'm not certain whether the member is asking about what the function of the radio division is or whether he is asking what is happening in the computer

section as it applies to radio. MR. D. ROCAN: If I understand you correctly, you're talking about the parts or the existing equipment in their vehicles? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I understand it's the parts. This is the computerization of the parts, software and hardware, to ensure that we have a better record of all the parts for the radio division. MR. D. BLAKE: The physical equipment would be in another

section here. HON. J. PLOHMAN: That's right, Mr. Chairman. This is not with the radios themselves. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (f)(1)- pass. 1. (f)(2) - the Member for Assi niboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: I'm sorry if I missed it, but was there an explanation for the $70,000 of increase in salaries? MR. CHAIRMAN: In (f)(2)? MR. R. NORDMAN: Was there an explanation on the salaries? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, do you wish an explanation? MR. R. NORDMAN: Yes. I would. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The Minis ter of High ways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman. what is happening, of course. is we've become more involved in computer services.

We've got to have more programmers, and so what we've done is reclassified some clerical positions to program positions, and that accounts for some of the larger than normal increases showing up on that line. In addition to that, there is the regular increase and merit increases - the 3 percent increase and the merit increase. MR. R. NORDMAN: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: (f)(1) - passed; (f)(2)-pass. We're now on Item 2.

Be it resolved that there be gr anted to He r Ma jesty a sum not exc eedi ng $67,966,600 for Operations and Maintenance - 2.(

a) Maintenance Program. The Member for Min nedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Possibly on this section, some of the members may want questions. If we were to range over -

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 the different sections and then pass it in a lump sum when we get finished the discussion, would that be agreeable? MR. CHAIRMAN: To do the entire resolution? MR. D. BLAKE: We may have people coming in who want qu es tions on the di strict office or bridge s, whatever. So if we get those out of the way, then when we get all the questions . . . pass. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that the wish of the committee? Is that agreed? The Mi nister of Highways. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: If the members are prepared to bear with me in jumping from various sections of a backdown, because there are a lot of areas covered, I have no problems with that. MR. D. BLAKE: The Member for River East wanted to ask some questions and I supp ose this is as good a

section as any here to do it all. lt might fit in maybe better at a later one. it's to do with the Perimeter, but I'm sure you can handle it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it the wish of the committee? The Member for River East. MRS. B. MITCHELS ON: Mr. Chairman, I was just wondering if there was anything happening with the northeast quadrant of the Perimeter Highway, Hwy. 101, any studies being done or anything been planned for the completion of that portion. HON. J.

PL OHMAN: We have allo cated in the Construction Program last year some fund ing for consu ltants to assist the department in defining specifically the requirements tor the right-of-way for the northeast quadrant of the Perimeter. The right-of-way had been purchased a number of years ago, but the exact requirements - whether we have sufficient right-of-way, what kinds of requirements for overpasses and so on would be needed there - that will be defined by the study that will be awarded very soon to consultants. We are in the process of getting Treasury Board approval for that at the present time for the studies.

Mr. Chairman, there will be public meetings held as part of that process over the next number of months to ensure that there is proper communication in the input with the public that would be affected, both the city of Winnipeg and the municipalities affected. I am also informed that we have staff who are part of the study team from the city of Winnipeg. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, J. McCrae: 2.(a)- pass­ the Member for River East. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Mr. Chairman, is there any construction planned within the next year or where are we at with that? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, obviously the results of the study would take some time, first of all, to be 614 received, take some time to complete the study , and then it would have to be reviewed by the department and then decisions made in subsequent years for additional acquisition, if that's required, and then design work for structures in that area and then construction could take place. So that obviously would be a number of years down the road before actual construction could take place, depending on priorities at that time.

But just physically , it would take a number of years, probably two to three years before actual construction could take place because, as I have indicated, the studies have to be reviewed and then the implications of those studies taken into consideration in acquisition and design. MR. D. BLAKE: What the Minister is saying is, when that Perimeter route was originally designed, the whole Perimeter route wasn't completed and designed at that time. lt was done in sections? There was no complete study done for the whole Perimeter route? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, there are gaps in the right-of-way that was purchased in some areas. Some was purchased in conjunction with the Floodway in that area, but only the general requirements, not specific plans. Specific plans, specific su rveys were not carried out, and there was no provision made for, as a result of detailed design, interchanges and overp asses and things lik e that, the design had not been done to that stage. So naturally there was just basic right-of-way purchased, but not the refined requirements ascertained at that time.

So that is necessary now to continue on, to get the detailed designs done and to determine exactly what will be required in addition, if anything, to what has already been acquired. But there will be some areas that there will certainly be additional land required. MR. D. BLAKE: Under the Winter Roads Program, could the Mini ster indicate to us how many miles of new winter road was constructed under the

section we are reviewing, and how many miles of winter road were either built of maintained last year? Does he have any indication or any tally at all of the number of tons hauled over the winter road system? HON. J. PL OHMAN: Mr. Chairman, there was a significant number of winter roads built in the North last year , as there have been over the last couple of years. MR. D. BLAKE: New ones? HON. J. PLOHMAN: There haven't been any new ones under this particular program this past year. We have one provision for Gods Lake Narrows to Gods Lake River that is being placed in the budget for this coming year. MR. D.

BLAKE: That will be built this coming winter? HON. J. PLOHMAN: For this coming winter. But the member asked about the total kilometres or miles that were built in the past year. There was York Landing to

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 llford, 32 kilom etres; York Landing to Split Lake, South Bay to South Indian Lake, Cross Lake to Hayes River crossing, Hayes River crossing to the junction of Oxford House to Gods Lake Narrows winter road, Oxford House to Gods Lake Narrows and, by the east side of Lake Winnipeg, Norwin Construction did 777 kilometres there in various sections. The total number I mentioned previous to that was 376 kil ometres, so that's a total of about 1, 15 0 ki lometres that were constructed last year. MR. D. BLAKE: These are older roads that were just rebuilt and maintained? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: These are winter roads that are put in place each winter. MR. D. BLAKE: Yes, the route is there. it's just de­ icing and resurfacing. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Pardon me. I'm sure Hansard is having difficulty when I am interrupting and you are. But, Mr. Chairman, what you're supp osed to say is call on each of us, and that way the . . . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: One at a time, gentlemen. HON. J. PL OHMAN: Yes. The route is alr eady established, and these are put in each year. MR. D. BLAKE: I suppose you wouldn't have any indic ation of how many tons were hauled over those winter roads? Is there any tally kept of that?

HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, there were totals, and I believe that question was asked last year. I don't have it in front of me, but we can certainly get that information. I understand from staff, Mr. Chairman, that they are in the process of compiling that, and it is not fully available at the present time. MR. D. BLAKE: There is some indication of what's hauled there. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, what we agreed to earlier on was that we would deal with Appropriation 2.(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (

f) and (

g) insofar as questions are concerned, so we're dealing with 2. and any of the sections under it. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. The Member for Rupertsland. HON. E. HARPER: Yes, I had a question. I have a complaint for the Mini ster of High ways. MR. D. BLAKE: Good, give it to him. HON. E. HARPER: I know the winter road goes to Red Sucker Lake. it's a reserve and it's not on the map. You have identified Red Sucker Lake, the lake itself, but the reserve - Red Sucker Lake is on a map - it hasn 't been on from the previous Min ister.

So I would 615 like to put on the record that I am putting Red Sucker Lake on a map. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, is the Min ister responsible for Native Affairs saying that the reserve is shown on the map? A MEMBER: No, the lake is shown. HON. J. PLOHMAN: The lake is shown but the reserve isn't? Okay, I will certainly draw that - Mr. Chairman, that was obviously an oversight somewhere in the system. Apparently, it's just slightly off the map. MR. D. BLAKE: We could call all these maps back and put that on before we leave . . . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Springfield. MR. G. ROCH: Yes, sir, under

section (

f) there is roughly a half-million dollar increase in salaries and wages. That's certainly more than 3 percent in merit. Has there been an increase in personnel and, if so, for what reasons? HON. J. PLOHMAN: The increase, Mr. Chairman, is due to the OPEEPM, which is the Organization of Professional Engineers, and the MGEA settlement or increases that are allowed. it's strictly a case of those salary adjustments. We are dealing there with over $7 million in salaries; so if you consider merit increases and the negotiated salary increase, that would account for the half-million dollar increase. MR. G.

ROCH: That's strictly salary increases for the same amount of people? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes. MR. G. ROCH: Mr. Chairman, Item (g), what does that mean, Other Jurisdictions? That encompasses what? Then I notice there is a decrease there. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Under "Other Jurisdictions," Mr. Chairman, it is accounts collectible, and this is work done for other organizations such as Manitoba Hydro, and we recover 100 percent of that back from them, or the Federal Government - well, you can see that in the second portion of the appropriation.

The LGD's are also included; anything that isn't part of a government department which would be revenue coming back to the department. If it's from other agencies outside of government, it comes as a recovery back to the Department of Finance. MR. G. ROCH: If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that it's charged to Highways, but part of it's unrecoverable? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, not quite; that's the point. There is some that is not recovered and there is a netting out. I'll just get the figures for why there is a decrease there in the amount that is netted out.

In the past year, obviously, it was 2,335,000 that came out

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 of the department as a gross figure. This coming year, we are projecting 1. 935 million. I guess, Mr. Chairman, what will happen here is that we will just be doing less work, to the tune of $400,000, for other parties that request it this coming year than we did last year, $400,000 less. Therefore, we will be recovering - we'll have a net expenditure drop of about 400,000 as well, or exactly 400,000. The recoveries will stay the same, which means we will be less able to respond to demands from other organizations, from LGD's, or from Hydro, whatever. MR. D.

SLAKE: There are a number of questions, Mr. Chairman, to be asked under Bridges and Structures. If the Mini ster could maybe give us an indication of what the bridge program entailed, then we would know whether to ask any questions on bridges that are needed or not. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of bridge appropriations, really. There are major jobs done under the construction program which we are not dealing with here. Then there is more minor work that is done under the maintenance program, rehabili tation of bridges. In the past year, there were about 11 bridges in this

section that were completed, four that were rehabilitated in 19 85-86 under this appropriation, and eight that were replaced during the past year, including Graham Creek, near the town of Jordan; Rat River at La Rochelle; Smith Creek near Mafeking; over a drain at the west boundary of the R.M. of Grandview; Valley Creek near the town of Grandview; Mineral Creek at the junction of PTH 5 and 10; East Baker's Narrows near the town of Flin Flon; and another one on the creek seven miles west of the town of Neepawa; and there are the PTH's that I can give the members as well. There were, as I indicated, four that were rehabilitated under this

section as well, one on the Birch River at the town of Birch River; one on the Little Saskatch ewan River eight miles north of Mi nnedosa; one on the Red River Floodway two miles south of PTH 10 0; and one on the Red River Floodw ay at the inlet structure. Those four were rehabilitated. So those are the ones that were completed under this section. There may be more as well. MR. D. SLAKE: I wonder if the Min ister could indicate if all of the bridges on the Yellowhead Route, Highway 16, and the Trans-Canada, have all of those bridges been rehabilitated to the standards that we require? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: There have been three on Highway 16, between Gladstone and Neepawa where the decking was completed in the last year or so and they've been completed. In the construction program, there were 13 bridges done last year, and this year we have budgeted 19 in the ... MR. D. SLAKE: Well, there are still some to do yet. That's what I'm getting at. They haven't all been completed yet. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I want to clarify, there were three bridges done on the Yellowhead in that area.

I don't 616 know that there are any right now that need upgrading on the Yellowhead, but there are bridges throughout the province that need replacing and upgrading continuo usly , and we have a continuous program to do that. As I ind icated, there are 19 in this year's budget. Last year, 13 were done. MR. D. BLAKE: We can maybe move on to Traffic Inspections. Is this program ongoing? Is the Min ister satisfied with the operation of Traff ic Inspections? I realize he mentioned earlier in his remarks that this year he was going to include truck and tr ailer inspections as well. HON. J. PLOHMAN: In this area, Mr.

Chairman, we see an increase in the Other Expenditures, which is for the purpose of providing more travel support for mobile inspectors so they can cover larger areas, so that there will be a better inspection from that. In that respect, the department has taken some initiatives in the past year to do some profes sional development with inspectors, to make them more aware of the sensitivies in dealing with the public and I think that's an important area. Obvio usly, they deal with the public all of the time.

They come across many situations that are highly charged , where individuals are trying to get their work done and they feel harassed at times, so they are providing courses for them to sensitize the inspectors in ways to handle the public in a gentler fash ion. Those are some of the improvements that have been made and I'm satisfied that we are making some progr ess in that area. Of cou rse, there are sti ll complaints that we get from time to time from the public, and we try to deal with them the best way possible, and ensure that they don't happen again, if there's a fault on the part of the inspector.

Usually it takes two to tango though and the antagonism, if certain situations arise, can come from both sides. MR. D. BLAKE: I just can't quite recall where the location is. The Mini ster may have had it brought to his attention. There's a weigh scale located somewhere and I had it brought to my attention twice and I just can't recall for the mi nute where it's located, but it's very difficult to get access. Oak Bluff, that's it. HON. J. PLOHMAN: The highway near the Perimeter. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I didn't get if there was a question there. MR. D.

SLAKE: Yes, I might let my colleague, the Member for Turtle Mountain, who is more familiar with it, describe the problem there. HON. J. PLOHMAN: The location is a problem and there are some studies being undertaken at the present time. it's in the functional study for the south Perimeter to determine a better intersection, better location for that inspection station. MR. D. ROCAN: So we have not acquired the land for this new scale yet? HON. J. PLOHMAN: No, Mr. Chairman.

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 MR. D. ROCAN: The rent on that little trailer that we're renting has been there for the last year or so, since the last one was hit by a truck. Can I ask how much rent we're paying on it? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, there's a question about the rent on a trailer at that weigh station and we can get that information and provide it to the committee. We don't have it at the present time. MR. D. ROCAN: Just to clarify , we are definitely looking at moving or replacing that scale there. HON. J. PLOHMAN: That is one of the purposes of that study being undertaken on the south Perimeter.

I shouldn't say the primary purpose, but one of the purposes. One of the questions to be answered is the question of that particular scale. MR. D. ROCAN: Other Expenditures on (e)(2). Am I led to believe that we're going to hire more support staff? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, (e)(2) deals with Other Expenditures, not Salaries and Wages; and as I indicated there, I believe that increase is largely due to the fact that we're providing more resources for mobile inspectors, so that they can cover larger areas. lt costs money to travel, obvio usly. MR. D.

ROCAN: Are we expecting our traffic inspectors then to chase down and flag down trucks? HON. J. PLOHMAN: They will have mobile scales set up in various areas. Different areas of the province vary, hopefully, from day to day and week to week, and inspections will be carried out at those stations. MR. D. ROCAN: Is anybody looking into the aspect of putting up a scale at 2 and 13? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, those areas are the locations for mobile inspectors to set up their stations from time to time and that is used for that purpose.

I understand that the studies have indicated that the mobile inspectors are the most effective way to inspect, as opposed to the established centres. Obvious ly, both would be needed, but mobile inspections at random are most effective. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further qu est ions on 2 - the Member for Springfield. MR. G. ROCH: Under District Offices, is that the area under which reconstruction falls under? HON. J. PLOHMAN: No, Mr. Chairman, Appropriation No. 8 is where the Capital program is and that is the construction program where we deal with that.

Under Districts, they are responsible for carrying out the maintenance activities and preparing the plans, in some instances, for construction surv eys, and so on. But the construction projects are usually dealt with in the Estima tes under the construction appropriation. 617 MR. G. ROCH: Under 2.(

f) where it says, "Other Expenditures," is that the area where there would be what? The maintenance of the roads in those particular districts or . . . ? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I will find, Mr. Chairman, the exact functions that take place under Other Expendit ures. As the member can see, there is a reduction there and that is due to a reduction in vehicle mileage attributed to that appropriation, so there's no increase from the previous year. But I'll get an outline of exactly what activities fall under that area. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions Item 2 - the Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. D.

ROCAN: What is the personal mileage that government employees are allowed to put on their, say, government half tons they can report from job sites, to and from home? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Under the previous question that was asked by the Member for Springfield, under that appropriation of Other Expenditures, District Offices, it includes provisions for vehicles, travelling by staff in the districts, for office supplies, printing and stationary, telephone and postage, office eq ui pment rental, mechanical division rental, materials, operating supplies, again, building maintenance and supplies, utilities, radio systems. Each of those is included in each of the districts and that's where you get the million one. MR. G. ROCH: Mr.

Chairman, well then basically the amount that is spent on actual maintenance would be 2.(a), am I correct? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, that's exactly correct. The Mai ntenance Program is $49,4 15, 000, up from 48,489 the previous year. MR. G. ROCH: So then, Mr. Chairman, all the other areas, (

b) to (

g) they're basically for support staff? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, they are headlined there: Winter Roads, and the amount that is spent on them. The contracts area - Operations and Contracts is outlined; Bridges and Structures, so I think the member would have to ask specific questions. MR. G. ROCH: Okay then, to be more specific, Mr. Chairman, that $49 million in Mai ntenance Programs, that would be the amount of money spent on both provincial roads and provincial trunk highways that are in need of repairs? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, for minor repairs, for gravelling, for dragging, shoulder work, mowing, snowplo ughing, and so on. MR. G. ROCH: So whatever is for winter roads or bridges, repairs and maintenance there fall under those specific categories? Everything else falls under (a)? HON. J. PLOHMAN: That's right. Bridges have their own maintenance program, so there's a bridge and -

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 maintenance function that is mentioned under (d). Formerly that used to be included under 2.(a), but it is now put in a more appropriate place, which is under the bridge

section for bridge maintenance. Anything that's not specifically identified as a maintenance function in the other appropriations is included under Mai ntenance. If it's major jobs, then it's under the construction

section of the budget. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions under 2.? The Member for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether this is the right place to bring it up under Operations and Maintenance, or under Planning and Design, you can straighten me out, if you will. As you are fully aware, ther e was a time a few years back when th ey contemplated by-pass ing the village of Headingley. I was just wondering what the status of that plan is? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mi nister has advised that that's under Planning and Design. MR. R. NORDMAN: Very fine, thank you, we'll bring it up at that point.

Thank you very much. HON. J. PLOHMAN: For the Memb er for Turtle Mountain, Mr. Chairman, I believe he asked a question about vehicles and, of course, that question should probably more appropriately be dealt with under a different department because it's an overall government policy under Government Services.

But I believe that there is a set amount, $50 or $60 a month that is paid for by each employee that has a vehicle assigned to him/her which will pay for a certain number of kilometres per month - this is personal mileage - and if they go beyond that then they have to pay a certain amount per kilometre or mile. So there is a government policy that allows for private use of government vehicles. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions under 2.? The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDG ER: Thank you , Mr . Chairman. I apologize that I had to leave for a little while to attend a meet ing.

I just want to come back, I don't know to what extent Traffic Inspections were covered, but I'd certainly like to just spend a little bit of time on that aspect of it, because I'm sure members from both sides of the House from time to time run into problems where certain individuals have been caught overload. Am I correct in saying this is covered under that? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to clarify for the member, what we're doing is the committee has agreed to deal with 2. as a whole, so you can move from

section to section. The Mini ster of Highways on a question then. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Fine, then I'll continue in that aspect of it. As I indicated, I think many rural members, from time to time, run into that problem where some truck er has been caught overweight. The majority of them pretty 618 well realize when they do that. The odd time you have cases where it might be a marginal call.

I'm just wondering what the basic attitude is of inspectors when they get out there, from time to time, have called members within the Highways Department and ask them to maybe review certain situations where things seem exorbitant, or maybe a lack of common sense has been used, I'm just wondering. I've had discussion with people within the Department from time to time and asked that maybe a little bit of common sense be used from time to time. Is there maybe a desire or direction within the department that a little bit more common sense be used?

Many of the truckers - I'd say the majority of the truckers - are very conscientious, in fact, especially when restrictions come on. We've had cases - I don't want to illustrate all the cases that I've run across, but especially certain bridges that are restricted. What happens, truckers come in with a heavy load or with a load and get up to a bridge; the bridge is restricted; or the municipal roads are restricted in the area, and they're sort of caught in a quand ary.

So invari ab ly the truckers, not realizing alw ays the restrictions that are on certain bridges come through, especially if they're new guys, somebody that runs the road all the time, they have an idea, but I just wanted to know from the Mini ster whether there is a bit of a change of attitude that could be used. In most cases or say in all cases when somebody gets nailed for overload, the inspector is right.

Invariably, I would think he's right, but there is a grey area of common sense where I just want to illustrate an example, where fell ows trucking to the States come back on a highway, not paying that much attention to some of these restrictions. One week, it was 350; a couple of weeks later, it's down to 250. The individual comes back with a tractor-trailer, he's empty; and because he's emp ty, it changes the weight on the front of the truck; he is overloaded on the front and, as a result, gets nailed , and substantially too.

These are the kinds of things where possibly a warning system - and I think some of the inspectors, they're not all the same, because you have some who are using a very common-sense approach, giving a warning and sort of letting a guy smarten up. Then you have those individuals that, for the smallest amount of infraction, take and nail a guy. What it does basical ly, it creates a hostile attitude with many of the people.

I am just hoping that maybe the Mini ster can indicate that the attitudinal change will be a little bit where there's a little bit of latitude and common sense being used, which is not always the case. Some of these inspectors, I suppose feel that they - I don't know whether they work on commission or not - I could get into more details on this where one indiv idual inspector over the years had five times as many tickets written as the one just adjacent to him. So the one guy says to the trucker, hey listen, you're over a bit, but I'll tell you something.

Smarten up or else, next time, you'll get the ticket and invariably, nobody wants to be faced with fines along this line. Then you have the other - pardon me, I was almost going to say turkey, which is not a good expression - but you have the other individual who goes by the letter of the law. You are wrong and you pay and, as a result, you have many of the truckers out there who get pretty aggravated.

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 I ju st want to bring that forward under Traffic Inspection to the Min ister, and ask him whether he could maybe instruct his people to use a little bit of common sense in these things. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it's rather ironic that the Member for Emerson is touching on the same area that the Member for Minnedosa just finished before he left the room, so that this rotation is not necessarily the best in terms of communications that's going on between the members.

But that was asked, and I did say at the time that I share the concerns and the need for inspectors to be sensitive when dealing with the public. We have emphasized over the last year or two that there should be more training and courses available to inspectors. This has taken place over the years, and I believe there is an improvement there, but there are always areas where there can be disagreements. Certainly, the public quite often would tend to be of the opinion that they're not doing anything wrong when they know very well in many instances that they are indeed wrong.

They are aware of the situation but, of course, they tend to be very naive or act like they weren't doing anything wrong when they are confronted by an ins pector. We know that there are all kinds of situations that develop. So the ins pectors have to do their best to do their job, and to also be sensitive when situations arise and warnings should be given under certain circumstances, I would agree, but you cannot just keep giving warnings obviously. So I think that we are making headway.

We're putting in more emphasis on training, and certainly passing the information to the staff to be as sensitive as they can in dealing with the public. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Just a question then to the Minis ter, how often do the inspectors actually give warnings? Is it quite common that they give warnings, or is that a rarity that they give warnings? Do they basically give tickets or do the officers of the RCMP do it? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well obvio usly, that will vary from inspector to inspe ctor, and that's why we are trying to get some consistency as to criteria, as to when warnings would be given.

That's difficult, because every situation is somewhat different, but some inspectors will give more warnings than others, obvi ously. MR. A. DRIEDGER: I think the Minister just illustrated my concern. If there were some consistency in this, but what happens is that certain road inspectors use more common sense and others don't ever give a warning. If there could be some general attitude in that area, I think it would enhance the attitude of our people that are driving trucks and the operators to quite a degree. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, that suggestion is duly noted. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions on 2.?

The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. D. ROCAN: To comment a little bit further, Mr. Chairman, when the inspectors write out the tickets, 619 do they not go the board and it's the board who issues the ticket? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask clarification from the Member for Turtle Mountain. What board is he talking about? MR. D. ROCAN: The Traffic Board. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Issues the fine? MR. D.

ROCAN: When the inspector catches us on the road with an overload or whatever, he just writes out the ticket and it goes to the board. lt is the Traffic Board who then issues the ticket or summons or whatever, I am ask ing. HON. J. PLOHMAN: The decision to issue a ticket is made by the inspector. Isn't that correct? Now the decision can also be made by the inspector to issue a warning. MR. D.

BLAKE: I think what the members are getting at is that the ticket goes in to the board, and they assess the fine or record the infractions and maybe call the trucker in, and they can lift his licence if he's getting caught in too many infractions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a question involved? The Member for Mi nnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: No, I am just clarifying. The Minister can correct me if I'm wrong, but the traffic inspector issues the citation. lt goes to the board, and they assess the fine or whatever it is and record the infractions.

If there is a number of them, they can lift the licence or call him before the board to justify why he has had a number of citations. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I am just getting clarification on that process for the members. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to defer that item for a moment? Are there any further questions on 2.? MR. D. BLAKE: We can present them and get through District Offices, and we may get through that tonight. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, I believe we are dealing with minor infractions such as overweight violations and the tickets are issued and the individual can pay that before any magistrate. If he wants to plead guilty, then charges are laid and it goes before the courts. But it does not come to the Traffic Board for payment of those offences. Now if we're dealing with authorities, then we're dealing with the Transport Board. I don't know whether the members are confusing the two boards, but the Traffic Board does not deal with the matters of fines and issuing fines for violations such as overweight. MR. D.

ROCAN: Is it the Transport Board then? HON. J. PLOHMAN: The Transport Board has been given the powers to fine for violations of the authority,

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 PSV authority, which is quite different from minor offences such as overweight that might be incurred by anyone who may not even have a special authority. lt could be under a T -plate, commercial truck, F-plate farmer , whatever . lt has nothing to do with PSV violations which come under the jurisdiction of the Transport Board. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to raise a concern under Other Jurisdictions which basically is work that the High ways Department does for various other departments and recovers from that, I understand.

The concern I want to raise is about the Department of Natural Resources, the work that was done. I ju st want to ask the Min ister , are ther e agreements that are ongoing agreements between, for example, the Department of Natural Resources on some of their forestry roads, to certain lakes, etc., where there is a cost-shared or a billing take place, or are these done on an ad-hoc basis on a year-to-year basis? HON. J. PLOHMAN: We're dealing here with recoveries which come from other jurisdictions, not departments of government. Mr.

Chairman, I have referred to this as recoveries because it is written in the book that way. lt is actually a revenue to the department and it is for work done for other departments. Therefore, it comes back into our appropriation. Recoveries, strict ly speak ing, are from other jurisdictions, other than departments, and the fact that the book says recoverable apparently is not quite accurate. 1t should be a rev enue item for the department. In any event, if the work is required to be done, the other department will ask to have it done and the department will do it and then bill the other department for the work.

MR. A. DRIEDGER: So my perception is right, that in this area, for example, the Department of Natural Resources would request the Highw ays Department to plough the road to Birch Point from Moose Lake, for example. I just want to use that as an example. Then the Highways Department will accommodate and bill the Department of Natural Resources. Am I correct in that assu mption? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, that's the way it works. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Okay, because there seems to have been confusion from time to time, Mr.

Chairman, where the department - I don't kn ow whether this is between the personnel involved here where the Department of Natural Resources says, well, the Highways Department is not doin g it. Then we get after the Hi gh ways Department and they say, well, Natural Resources hasn't requested it. That's why I asked whether there are ongoing agreements or is this done on an ad-hoc basis where the Department of Natural Resources says, listen, the road to Birch Point from Moose Lake is blocked, will you go in there and plough it?

I use that as an example, but I know there are many other examples that work the same way. I'm just trying to establish whether there is a format in place, that gets established prior to winter or whether we do this as the situation develops. 620 HON. J. PL OHMAN: Mr. Chairm an, usua lly th e department responds on an as-requested or as-required basis as a result of a request being made by the other department. So if some work is required, the other department will advise the Department of Highways and they will carry out the work. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: I appreciate that because that clarifies in my mind some of the concern that has been expressed. I use that example of the road from Moose Lake to Birch Point, because I know there are many cases where the same situation develops and there is more or less a passing of the buck between one department and the next in this respect.

I'll just throw this out as a suggestion to the Min ister of Highw ays, that maybe there should be a clarification, because the public perception is not always - to them government is government and whether it's Natural Resou rces or Hig hways Departm ent, they lump everything into government and get very annoyed. When the buck gets passed back and forth, it creates a lot of problems and the next thing you know the ML A is involved. We're phoning and trying to get this thing straightened out.

I'm wondering if maybe some - well, I don't know if you can develop a program, but some kind of understanding could be worked out so that some of these things could be done in a little easier manner rather than go through the confrontation situation that we apparently have been going through from time to time. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I sympathize and empathize with what the member is sayi ng. There are many situations where two departments are involved in a problem that the public is concerned about.

They may be referred from one department to another. lt happens in water resources, problems in drainage, problems in highways, as well as it does in this area. So it is an area that could be streamlined to a certain degree, and we'll look at that, especially as it applies to the kinds of things here that are done year after year for another department, but the arrangement is never formalized . If it is always left to as-requested, it may fall between the slats from time to time, and we should try to get around that. MR. A. DRIEDGER: I'd appreciate that. Thank you. MR. D.

BLAKE: Besides that, it's much more difficult to get winter fishing down there if the roads are . MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions on 2? The Member for Min nedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: I think that's been covered pretty well. I just wanted to cover a bit on District Offices. I realize these are pretty well normal operating expenses for the District Offices, but in view of the very limited amount of work that is being done - I know there will be maintenance work done - I just wondered if the Mini ster might care to share with us how he plans to keep all of these employees occupied this summer. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, there is a core staff that is available at each district office. - (I nterjection)

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 - There's too much noise. If you don't get order, I'm not going to talk. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have some order please? I can't hear the Min ister. I'm sure the questioner can't either. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Now, Mr.

Chairman, there is a core of district staff that is in place at each district office; then there is additiona l staff that's allocated on a as-required basis, and that varies according to the amount of work tha t is being undertaken at any particular time from well over 400 to as high as nearly 600 at any particular time, total staff - I think over 600 at certain times, 620 - and then it goes down again, depending on the amount of work that is being undertaken at any particular time, so there is some flexibility there.

Of course, as I indicated earlier, the maintenance program is at least as large as it was in previous years; so any work associated there, which is most of it for district offices, is certainly as demanding as it has been in previous years. So there shouldn't be a need to have, I don't believe, a lot of reductions in staff there; certainly, the demand for staff in the maintenance functions will be about the same as in previous years, and then there is some flexibility in the system for the districts insofar as additio nal employees for construction activities. MR. D.

BLAKE: Yes, it becomes a little frustrat ing for some of the road grading contractors that are trying to keep a staff on and end up having to lay them off, and the people that get laid off look at the Highw ays staff and think that maybe they're batting their head against the wall working for a contractor, they should be working for the Highways Department and avoid the danger of layoffs. Has there been any change in policy, Mr. Min ister, on the mai ntena nce of mun icipa l roads or th e municipality grading PR's? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Well, that arrangement is primarily in District 7, I believe, where mun ici palities stil l undertake work for the Department of Highways. Most districts have now - (I nterjection) - Yes, but primarily in District 7. There has been some other districts that we also rent the municipal equipment and there's no change that has been made in that arrangement, but over the years it has been declining, the amount of municipal equipment that is used, and the department is moving more and more towards its own equipment, but there's no dramatic change in the policy. Mr.

Chairman, I was just going to add on that area of using municipal equipment, most of the districts have a very small percentage ranging from 1 percent to about 18 percent, 19 percent the highest, except for Districts 7 and 8 where 48 percent in District 7 and 76 percent of the rentals that take place in District 8 come from municipalities as opposed to private rentals. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Ste. Rose. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Yes, perhaps the question I'm about to ask has already been asked. I hope that the Chairman will inform me.

My question is regarding the use of municipal equipment in the various areas. 621 When municipal equipment is leased, or municipalities are hired to do maintenance for the Department of Hi ghw ays , what is the protocol for having the maintenance work done on the roads? Where does the direction come from? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, it would come from the district engineer or the supervisor/superintendents who work under him in the districts. MR. G. CUMMINGS: My understanding has been that on some of the provinc ial trunk hig hways the maintenance

schedule is laid out on a predetermined number of days per week or per month when a particular road might be maintained, and the concern at first glance, at any rate, would be that whoever is laying down these criteria has never seen the road. I question if - do the people who actually drive those roads on behalf of the Department of Highways, do they lay out the work schedules on the secondary highways? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, there obviously is some flexibilit y, depending on the conditions and, hopefull y, the district people who are responsible are familiar with the conditions of the road.

But there's also standards that are set down that establish how many times the road should be dragged; how much dust treatment it should get, depending on the classification of the road, whether it's a class 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, but that is established on the basis of traffic counts; the amount of gravel, cubic yards per mile or whatever, is placed on the road; the number of times the shoulders are dragged and so on. All that is established by standards that have been established by the department many, many years ago and have been maintained throughout the years.

So the standards are there but there is still flexibility within those standards for the dis tricts to put additional attention on a certain road if there's some difficulties taking place at that particular time. MR. G. CUMMINGS: The reason that I asked the question, Mr. Chairman, is that as the highways are either under construction or have deteriorated for some reason, the traffic flow on the secondary roads, the numbered roads, provincial PR roads, our traffic flow is increasing there, and I question then, where is the direction coming from for increased maintenance on some of those PR roads?

If it's coming from the local people, is their restriction also governed by budget? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, obviously, the budget would be set on the basis of the standards that are there. That allowance has not decreased; it has increased with inflationary factors over the years. We have continued to maintain those standards this year and last year so that there has been no reduction in the budget, so there should not be a reduction in the standards that are applied for maintenance purposes on those roads.

If traffic counts, which are taken every couple of years, I believe, on most roads indicate that there are changing traffic patterns, and if it requires that the road be categorized upward to another classification because

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 of the traffic volumes crossing a certain threshhold - and I can give the member those thr eshholds - then they would fall into a different category, they would receive more dragging trips per year and would qualify for more gravel and so on and so forth. MR. G. CUMMINGS: I don't mean to be facetious, Mr.

Chairman, but it would appear that what the Min ister has just said, in fact, makes my case that the roads are - you can refer it back to budgetary considerations, if you will, but it still is on a predetermined amount of maintenance that's put into those roads rather than things that are det ermined by perhaps weather conditions in a particular year. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Well, the standards are there as minimums, primarily, and if there are certain situations that deve lop, as I ind icated earli er, that req uir e additio nal atte nti on, addi tio nal gr avel, addition dragging, whether it be a flooding situation such as happened near Portage this past year or other areas of the province, they will respond to those situations and attempt to, without consid eration directly to the amount of dollars being spent, as long as it isn't ridiculous, to get the job done, to get the road back into condition so that it is passable.

Certainly, in other situations where it's not that drastic a situation, where a road is just deteriorating and that is brought to their attention. certainly if it's brought to my attention, we ask the districts to give special attention to that road. If the public is complaining about a certain road, raising concerns, again directed to the districts, they would respond if they feel they're legiti mate; so there is room and there's flexibility in the system to respond to particular needs when required. A MEMBER: When there's enough for every mile then they grade it oftener. MR. G.

CUMMINGS: The premise for my question of course is that it seemed that when the road became a provincial road and when the maintenance became controlled from somewhere other than the municipal level, that the amount of attention that it was being given appeared to deteriorate. I would like to ask further, in that same vein, when an agreement is made between a municipality and the province, does the . . .

I'll give you an example which would illustrate my case and it may be some thing that can be cleared up quite easily by the Min ister if it is simply brought to his attention, I'm not sure; but there are examples of where the provincial equipment is coming out of the LGD where they work, and when they hit the edge of the municipality and there are still two or three miles left on the road - and you may very well be aware of the situation that I'm ta lking about - the blades go up and, particularly in snowplowing season, people may drive 15 miles or so on a road, on a well plowed road, and all of a sudden they end up in a rutted or probably impassable situation.

Given normal weather conditions, this is not the end of the world, but it has caused considerable problems for people who are unfamiliar with the area. Can those sorts of situations be alleviated without a great of cost to either the province or the municipality? 622 HON. J. PLOHMAN: it's true that the province has different responsi bilities in LGDs then it does in municipalities, so that's a very unique situation, if it's LGD roads that we're talking about here.

If it's provincial roads they will go by beats, it's called, and they will complete their runs, will not stop in the middle of a road in the middle of nowhere. They are set up in such a way that they make sense, in between centres. I'm sure the member is talking about a situation where we're dealing with and LGD road, as opposed to a provincial road, and obviously there's unique problems there because, as I said, the province does not undertake maintenance for municipalities. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Further to that question, Mr.

Chairman, my real concern is to solve the problem, as I'm sure it is the Min ister's concern also. What kind of arrangements can be made with the municipalities? The situation for the travelling public can become quite dicey, given the situation I described a minute ago. The charge to the municipality, is it going to be charged to them at full rate, given that they're - it seems like two levels of government are unable to reach an amicable agreement without a fair bit of cost involved.

Can the Min ister foresee a situation such as this where a municipality should be able to have some assurance that the plows in fact, when they come to the end of the road, do not simply lift up their blades and carry on? If it's the cost that's the problem, can the government negotiate more flexibly with these municip alities, because the plows are going down the road anyway. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I would think if there is a specific situation that is a chronic problem that we will take a look at it and see whether some kind of arrangement can't be made.

So if the member wants to draw that specific situation to my attention, I would be glad to look into it. lt seems to make some sense, although I'm sure the member can appreciate that we cannot have the Highways crews just going ahead and doing municipal roads without an agreement being in place, obvio usly, because they may decide that it didn't have to be done at that time and therefore feel that it's not something they should pay for; so there should be an arrangement or prearrangement made on that on an accounts collectable basis of some kind.

I'm sure if there were specific situations where this has been developing that something could be worked out and I have not had this matter brought to my attention previously. MR. G. CUMMING S: On a different vein, Mr. Chairman, there very often seems to arise differences between the conservation di stricts and the Department of Highways or, if you will, what used to be known in my area at least as watershed dis tric ts, over what constitutes a viable, natural waterway. Is there a mechanism between the Department of Highways and the other responsible departments to keep these disp utes at a minimum?

They are all localized of course. There seems to be a fair number of them that crop up and, without being specific, I'm talking in terms of where a new road construction goes through and a dispute arises over whether a culvert

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 should or should not be installed in what some people would consider to be a viable drain in the first place; or at times there seems to be a dispute between the Department of Hig hways about whether or not a highway ditch can in fact be used as part of a drainage system. There have been a considerable number of situations where the Highw ays Department appears, at least, to have refused to become part of a drainage system; and I would think there may be an inordinate amount of cost that accrue to the province from time to time if these departments aren't on the same wave length.

Is there a system in place right now where there's communication between those departments? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, there is a system in place in that the Department of Highways does take their di rection, in terms of the requir ements for drainage, from the Water Resources Department and they are in constant communication on these matters. Many times, I am sure the departmental staff in Highways are not happy with the response time that is required to get some answers from the Department of Natural Resources, the Water Resources Branch. Maybe it works the other way as well.

But they attempt to work together as much as possible and the volumes are determined - water movement is determined by Water Resou rces and the Hig hways Department responds as a result of the figures that are given to them by Water Resources. lt would seem to me that where there is a dispute, it may mean maybe tha t the wat ershed, or the Conservation District wants the Department of Highways to pay for all of the costs associated with the particular drain when there, in fact, are additional costs and they should be borne by the other jurisdiction, or Water Resources at least, or maybe the Cons ervation District, as opposed to the Department of Highways.

That may be the kind of dis pute that the member is referring to. If it is a question as to whether a culvert should be placed or not, or of the size of it, that obviously would be a matter that the Conservation District should take up with the Water Resources Department. That would seem to be where the dis pute is because it is Water Resou rces that the Department of Highways responds to. If they ha ven't got their message through to somebody, it is probably to the Water Resources Branch as opposed to the Department of Highways. MR. G. CUMMINGS: I guess my question is still concerning the lines of communication.

Maybe it is a perception more than a reality but there is still - I am not sure that I agree totally with what the Min ister has said in terms of where it would appear that drainage problems have resulted or, if you will, the escape of water from certain farm properties where the problem may have developed after the construction of a highway. The people, farmers naturally, seem to have a problem inasmuch as when they discuss it with the Highways personnel, they are informed that Highways are not, in fact, the drainage system.

Yet there seems to be a need for some system whereby the people affected in this way can appeal to the bodies in question and the conservation people would obvious ly have to be involved at that point. 623 Is there a mechanism right now that perhaps I am not aware of, where the landholder, in this case, can get both responsible bodies together and have the matter cleared up to the satisfaction of all three parties? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, I believe that some of this coord ination pro bably has to come from restructuring or revamping of the Conservation Districts in those areas where this kind of problem arises. In areas where there are no Conservation Districts, it is a matter of getting the people together from the two departments and perhaps there should be a more formal appeal mechanism of some experts to look at certain situations, although I don't think you can get answers, in many cases, on the spot. There is a lot of study that has to go in.

Many times there is a number of alternatives; it is not clear-cut. lt makes it very difficult to get answers. There's many situations where the Highways Department cannot get a road built because they are waiting for these kinds of things, disputes with local landowners who are complaining about water, and the Water Resources trying to do studies on it and determine which is the best solution. The Department of Highways has to wait until results of those come forward and it does take a long time in many instances. Some of the areas up in our area of the province, in the Ste.

Rose cons tituen cy, in the Dauphin constituency and other areas, in the Parkland area - perhaps it is the same throughout the province but particularly in that area that i am aware ot. I guess the dispute-resolving mechanism has been the Deputy Min ister going out to bring these people together and try to come up with some workable solutions - we have done that in a number of cases - or some other senior staff, as a result of particular problems that have been brought to our attention.

I don't know if there is a better way to do it but it is certainly something that we will consider. lt is a frustration to me, as well, at times. MR. D. BLAKE: Mr. Chairman, those of us that have been here, pretty well all the questions have been answered, although there are some members in the other committee that want to question the Minis ter in one or two areas here. We are not going to finish this item. We are going to stay on it but I'm sure it won't take long to wrap it up once the other questions are answered. I suppose we don't want to sit too long after 10 :00 o'clock.

I might just ask the Min ister, before we close, there are two languages on the new map. Why was Ukrainian left off the new maps? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be fair. The other map was in place for two years with Bitaemo and it served the people of Manitoba very well. I am sure that this map, with the two official languages, will also meet the needs of the people of Manitoba. Insofar as the closing time for tonight, I think that we should probably adjourn very shortly. I just hope, though, that we won't have the same situation that arose tonight where we have a rotating chair kind of situation.

As soon as the Member for Minnedosa

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 finished his ques tioning, somebody else came in and asked about the same area. So if we have covered the areas, I hope we can move on to the next one fairly quickl y next time. MR. D. BLAKE: I just want to correct the Mi nister on his remark about two official languages. I'm not just too sure that's a correct statement. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Pardon me? MR. D. BLAKE: About two official languages. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it's a comment that's not really within . . . MR. D. BLAKE: I think the questions that the other members have are to do with their particular areas, so I don't think it will . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Churchill. HON. J. COWAN: Perhaps, with the approval of the Opposition then, we could pass the particular item with the understanding that we will go back and entertain specific questions from members who weren't able to be here this evening on that item. We have done that in the past and it seems to work relatively well. MR. D. BLAKE: That's fine. As I say, I don't think we have many more questions. We could keep this one going for awhile but there is no point in that. If we can agree to let the members have their questions, then we could pass the whole thing, the whole area. HON. J.

COWAN: If we could pass it and say they come back ... MR. G. CUMMINGS: Mr. Chairman, I prefaced my remarks by saying that if I was going over an area that has already been covered, that I would . HON. J. PLOHMAN: lt wasn't you. MR. G. CUMMINGS: . . . be prepared to be corrected. I would also like to point out at this point that with Agriculture and Highways on at the same time, both are quite important to those of us who are rural members and the majority of the Conservative caucus is rural. I am afraid it is probably going to be an ongoing problem for the Min ister. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Mi nnedosa has made that clear, that it is a problem and we will just have to cope with it. What is the wish of the committee? Committee rise? The options we have, if I could just make a comment, we could pass these items, as is the suggestion from the Member for Chur chill, and deal with specific questions on these items as other members come in, if that is the will of the committee. MR. D. BLAKE: Mr. Chairman, on that point, we have made pretty good progress. We have passed Item 1. 624 Item 2, as I say, I don't think we will be very long in passing that, and that is a fairly large item.

We will be passing the whole thing en masse. We are not going to pass each item-by-item. We'll just pass Appropriation 91 once. MR. CHAIRMAN: The suggestion is, committee rise. MR. D. BLAKE: Yes. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, we're easy to get along with. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee rise. SUPPLY - AGRICUL TURE MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Committee, please come to order. We were considering Item No. 2.(

a) Manitoba Crop Insur ance Corporation, Administration. The Honourable Mi nister. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, just before we broke for Pr ivate Memb ers' Hour , I provided memb ers opposite with a brief overview of the crop insurance program. I'd like to advise honourable members that in terms of the questions on Other Expenditur es, staff are trying to get all those details together and I hope to have them in a presentable form for them next time we meet. I don't believe in terms of the workload tomorrow that we'll be into Estimates, but likely on Monday afternoon when we go back into Estima tes. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. G. FINDLAV: In terms of the crop insurance program, have there been any changes in the dollar values used for wheat and barley in '86 as opposed to'85? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, no, there are not, not for the major crops. MR. G. FINDLAV: Is there any foreseen problem with using those values, now that the export price of grain has fallen? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the maximum insurable value is at 70 percent of the lon g-term yield, we're likely still within the allowable - sort of the range between the insured value and the market value.

We're still in that range at the present time. MR. G. FINDLAV: Over a period of time, you hear comments like people farming crop insurance, with the higher dollar value; is that morely likely to happen? Further to that, how are people who abuse crop insurance handled over a period of years? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, there may be a possibility of that occurring; however, the program does provide for surcharges on premiums for consistent years of losses. Quite frankly , Mr. Chairman, the kind of

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 suggestion that was being made the other day by members opposite in terms of making payouts - in fact crops that could be harvested in the fields were taken off - and the suggestions made to treat them as zero would be the kinds of things that we would have to be careful of.

But, administrati vely, there's always that kind of a possibili ty, but the Corporation over the years, as I'm sure the member is aware being a client of Crop Insur ance, the Corporation does evaluate and make allowances if in fact the terms of farming crop insurance for uninsured causes, and can in fact assess a lower coverage or reduce the coverage or the allowability as a result of, say, poor farming practices and just putting in the crop and not managing it properly. MR. G. FINDLA Y: Can a pers on's contract be terminated? What is the process for termination of contracts? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, if a farmer consistently is either very ur.cooperative - it would have to be over an excessive period of time - the board has the power to cancel a contract of a producer. There have been ins tan ces wher e the boar d has, on recommendation of staff, canc elled contr acts for basi cally doing the kind of thing in general terms as the member suggests. But it would have to be over a period of time, and there would have to be consistent evidence that this has occurred and lack of cooperation and generally just basically , using the term that the member used, farming or attempting to farm crop insur ance.

MR. G. FINDLAY: Is there a specified period of time that the abuse has to occur over, and are there special regulations that the person has to abuse before he can be terminated? What is the procedure, specifically? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, every case would have to be examined on its own merits. I don't believe that the corporation has, and I stand to be corrected, cancelled anyone after one year's experience, I don't believe. lt would have had to be more than one years experience in terms of cooperation or non-cooperation in those issues. In terms of those procedures, they have been long­ standing.

There has been no change in the procedures, but every case is examined on its own merits. MR. G. FINDLA Y: How many would have been terminated in the last five years, and who makes that final decision? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the board would ultimately make that decision. I am advised that it would likely be less than a half-a-dozen in the last five years. MR. G. FINDLAY: There is an appeal board of Crop Insurance. How many appeals would have been heard in the last two years? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that there were no appeals agains t the rulings of the corporation in the last crop year.

Previously, I am 625 advised that there were something like three or four that were heard by the Appeal Board. lt may have been more, we'll just check that out. MR. G. FIND LAY: Do you know what the nature of the appeals were? What is being appealed when they come forward? HON. B. URUSKI: Generally, Mr. Chairman, to the Honourable Member for Virden, the reason for an appeal would be the amount of loss and the percentage of loss covered.

The adjuster would adjust a crop and determine this percentage of loss, and the farmer generally would disagree and say I've had a larger loss than you have provided for me and I'm basically appealing your decision in that respect. MR. G. FINDLAY: Before one of those issues gets to appeal, there are probably disputes, and I'm wondering in how many cases are there disputes in settlement of claims? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, in terms of administrative process, the corporation adjusts the crop or the adjuster will come out and adjust the crop.

If the farmer is not happy with the adjustment, generally what occurs is a second opinion of another adjuster, if sought. If, in fact, that is still rejected in terms of the second opinion, the regional manager will attempt to look at th ose adjustments and try and affect a settlement. At that point in time, if a settlement cannot be reached, then the option to the producer is given to go through the tribunal. MR. G. FINDLAY: Do you have any idea how often that is happening or what percentage of cases are going to the second adjuster or to the third situation? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, we don't have a specific number to give to the honourable member, but generally from the experience each regional manager likely will have a couple of those cases per crop year. lt wouldn't be very many that would occur, but it does occur. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(a) - the Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to follow up with the Mini ster a couple of areas in crop insurance, and I discus sed this with the crop insurance people both at home and in the head office.

I think this year and last year was probably unique in that if you chose your maximum value for insured value on the contract, particularly in oil seeds, you were generally above market value. I posed the question to the corporation both . . . HON. B. URUSKI: You're talking about both flax and canola. MR. D. ORCHARD: Flax and canola are the two that I'm sure of. I'm not sure about wheat. I never really took the time to figure out wheat. But basi cally, I made the point with the corporation that within your risk area, you are insured for so many

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 bushels and then you can pick one of three dollar­ values to pick a per-acre volume of insurance if you will. As you move up in your dollar values, of course, your premium goes up. I put the case to the corporation locally and in Winnipeg that, in fact, what a person is doing when he is buying his insurance, is he's buying price protection as well, because as you move up the dolla r-value scale, you've paid a premium to do that. The case I was making to the corporation is that it is irrelevant if you have an entire crop loss, because then you get your entire per acre coverage.

You're covered for $88 and you have a crop adjusted at zero, you get $88 per acre. But . . . circumstances can come in where you have a partial crop failure and you achieve - for instance, in flax, if you 're covered for 11 bushels an acre - you get part of it off and the balance is lost on an over-winter claim. What they do then is when they come in, as they deduct your harvested bushels at the contracted price, and you go out and you sell them at below that contract price on the market and you lose $1 for every bushel you've harvested.

I made the case to the Crop Insurance Corporation that if some farmer wished to be shrewd, had a good lawyer, he could probably make a pretty strong case in civil court that he, in fact, bought price protection because the premium reflected it and, therefore, on the bushels that he harvested, crop insurance would supplement that dollar. For instance, market price on flax right now is about 5.85 and the top insur ance coverage is about 7. 15 .

The Crop Insurance Corporation assured me that they had checked their contract, and that what they were doing was insuring bushels, and bushels only, and the fact that you chose a higher dollar volume really had nothing to do with the premium. Now I don't exactly buy that - I have to tell you I don't buy that - but I don't have the money to push it through court, if I so desire.

But what I want to point out to the Mini ster is that if current market prices exist, then a farmer buying a contract and choosing the high dollar value - which most farmers are doing in order to get about $90 per acre of coverage - and he harvests that first 11 bushels per acre and only achieves, say, $65 on the marketplace, or $60 on the marketplace, I made the case with Crop Insurance that you could have a class action this fall where many farmers - because all would be affected - would come to the Crop Insurance and say, "I paid for the higher dollar volume coverage; I didn't get it in the marketplace.

I paid you a premium which reflected higher dollar volumes," and a class action amongst farmers could very well succeed. I just wondered if the Min ister had had any opportunity to discuss that with the corporation? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I like the honourable member's comment in the sense that we have in fact been recomme nding, as a principal, that pric e protection through Western Grain Stabili zation could, in fact, be tied to the Crop Insurance Program with a topping up of a producers' income when, in fact - both on the yield side and on the price side - there is a shorta ge. Quite fr ankly , Mr.

Chairman, the honourable members in debate several years ago, were sayi ng, why is your level of coverage, before we changed them, so low that it doesn't even cover my cost of 626 production? I mean that was the great debate. Now because of market prices going down, the reverse situation has occurred where, in fact coverage, as the member suggests and I agree with him - there could be circumstances in which coverage for a period of time may in fact exceed what one can earn from the marketplace. That is a distinct possibil ity.

But yet that coverage in terms of costs, or cash costs, still may be too low to the farmer, and that argument prevails. But I want to say to my honourable friend that clearly the corporation, from its insurance contract, does insure bushels. lt is the bushel amount that is really being covered, the amount of bushels. But I don't disagree with my honourable friends at all, that what I would consider a reasonable proposal, and making Western Grain Stabili zation an income support, truly producer and crop specific, would be a way of in fact tying it very closely to crop insurance and crop insurance yields.

When a farmer's loss is both on production, on bushels, and market price is down so there's a loss on the income side, Western Grain comes in and in fact pops up on the income side and crop insurance pays out on the bushel side and there is total income protection to the farmer.

Tha t would be the id eal in terms of what the honourable member is alluding to, and I appreciate his comments in this respect. lt's a kind of a, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't situation because, on the one hand the market price may be so low it doesn't cover your costs, and then the arguments that we've had over the last number of years in this Chamber say, damn it, you're not even covering our costs, why aren't you increasing your coverage, when in fact crop insurance, historical ly, coverage levels or dollars-per­ bushel coverage, have attempted to reflect the market price.

There is some time lag there and overlapping there. But I don't disa gree with my honourable friend on the circumstance that could occur , where in fact the farmer make better from crop insurance for a short period of time than, in fact, from the marketplace and I don't dis agree with him. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I don't want the Mini ster to leave the record alluding to the fact that I suggested we marry an income stabili zation with the crop insurance. I didn't make that suggestion. This Mini ster has been around this House too long, and he tends to do things like that when he replies to questions.

The point I made with him and the point I want him to come to grips with is, this year in the oil seeds, if the street price on oil seeds does not improve between now and next fall - and every projection that you want to make, which just probably means the price is going to go up - but every projection you see says the price is going to stay around $6 or less for flax and canola. Now the point I'm making with this Min ister and the point I made with the Crop Insurance Corporation, is that people who have purchased the higher dollar value have paid a premium to do so.

The premium has been paid strictly on the dollar value of the crop because their bushel coverage has remained the same, no matter which of the three doll ar-values they choose. The point I make to the Mi nister is that a class action by all contract holders in crop insurance in flax and

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 in canola, I think would be pretty doggone hard to beat despite what the crop insurance contract says, and you're talking big dollars. You're talking an 11 -bushel coverage; you're talking $1 a bushel; you're talking $10 an acre or better across this province for every contract holder in flax and rape, because the moment those people achieve their insured bushel yield, they have not got their dolla rs and they've paid the premium. I think the Minister understands what I'm saying quite clearly, and he tried to divert the issue into Western Grain Stabilization and we'll deal with that later.

But I just want the Minis ter to be on alert that you're going to have many farmers who are going to come in this fall, and I hope they don't have the difficulty of a few bushels short of their crop insurance coverage, but they are going to be terribly upset when they find out that they'd purchased 11 bushels of coverage, say, in flax, and $7. 15 per bushel for about $80 an acre, and they harvest $8 and their claim for the other three bushels is only at $7. 15, and the difference from the market to their contract price is not being made up and they're not getting the $80 per acre coverage that they thought they were buying this spring.

That's a real problem because I've talked to a number of farmers and they believe that when they bought $80 worth, if they come in with slightly fewer bushels, that the crop insurance would supplement their dollars up to the $80 an acre because that's the reason why they went to the higher dollar volume. I just forewarn the Min ister that if circumstances happen he's going to have angry farmers. I want to deal for a minute with the concept of the Min ister's sugge stion of marrying Western Gr ain Stabil ization as price protection with crop insurance.

I suggest to the Minis ter that that may well work for a number of farmers, but he's got a problem in that a lot of farmers don't take crop insurance out because they don't believe that over the long-term average yield figures that crop insur ance uses to determine coverage in the different risk zones, that it reflects properly modern management technique that many farmers must use today - not want to but must use today if they're going to stay in agriculture and stay as a viable farm operation.

Anyone who is producing, for instance, hard Red Spring Wheat for a commercial farm operation in which they're going to be around tor a long time, and he's insured for 22 bushels, if he isn't making 40-50 bushels per acre, he's not in business. Yet, there is no program in crop insurance that adjusts on the shorter yield term. Let's be perfectly honest with ourselves, too.

There have probably been greater strides in production in the last 15 years in this province - in the last 10 years, in particular - than ever in the previous 11 0 year history of farming in this province. it's becaus e of use of chemicals, us e of new equipment, use of fertilizers, use of new varieties, and the yields have gone up, but yet the crop insurance average coverage yields are based over - I believe a 25 year? HON. B. URUSKI: Twenty-five year . . . MR. D. ORCHARD: Yes, 25-year coverage. 627 HON. B. URUSKI: it's 15 for the others. MR. D. ORCHARD: Yes, okay, 15 tor the oil seeds, presumably, and for corn.

Even in those kinds of crops, you are into the same kind of problem because varieties in oilseeds, and particularly in canola, made dramatic changes over the last 15 years where the variety alone is responsible for probably as much yield increase per acre as you're willing to cover the average farmer, just variety change alone.

If the Mini ster is making the proposal that we marry Western Gr ain Stabiliz ation with Ma nitoba Crop Insu rance Corporation, he has got to bear in mind that many people don't take out crop insurance because the coverage levels are not adequate for a commercial farmer that is going to be in busi ness over the long haul. Secondly, a lot of farmers aren't in the Western Grain Stabil ization; I think about 20 percent of the farmers aren't in it.

I don't know what that represents in terms of crop acres across Western Canada, but I think about 20 percent of the farm population, or of the permit book holders, are not in the Western Grain Stabilization.

The difficulty is it you do marry those two programs in an attempt to combine a yield goal with a price goal, and you use both programs, you force people who are neither to go into both and you force people who are in one to go into the other; and I realize that the Minister will make the argument that it's voluntary, but it that's the only game in town, where you marry the two programs. you will in effect be endina up making people take out that kmd ot a program or else they won·t be covered. Maybe the Mini ster would want to comment and then I've got one more area I'd like to talk to him about. HON. B.

URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, there were several points that the honourable member has made and I'll try and cover them, and if I don't I'm sure he'll come back to me on them.

First of all, on his assertion that there will be farmers who will be mighty unhappy, in terms of oilseeds, should they in fact fall below their insured amount of bushels per acre or tonnes per acre, the printouts - and I think the honourable member knows what I'm talking about - that the farmer receives do clearly state, it's either bushels per acre or tonnes per acre, is what the corporation insures for, not the dolla rs per acre. it's so many tonnes per acre, the coverage, is what you're insured for.

Whether you pick the low, medium or high level, that's a farmer's choice but, clearly, in terms of the contract, and the member should look at his contract, is the volume amount is what you're being covered for. Whether it's in tonnes per acre or in bushels per acre is what is being insured. I would say there may be a few farmers who may want to try and make that kind of an argument, but I would suggest that farmers who have been in crop insurance, and many of them for many years, for 25 years or, some less, know what they are being insured for, and that is bushels per acre or tonnes per acre in the program. MR.

D. ORCHARD: The Mini ster may well have a valid point, but there would be one thing that would prove

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 or disprove it, and that would be this year, with your sign-ups in crop insurance, what percentage of your producers took the highest dollar volume. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, clearly, the vast majority of producers took . . . MR. D. ORCHARD: Exactly the point. HON. B. URUSKI: . . . as they did last year, Mr. Chairman, as was being bandied about by some of your colleagues, saying that we in fact were ripping farmers off, that we were increasing their premiums to such a magnitude that they would not take the program.

In fact, the vast majority of producers are taking the highest dollar amount per bushel of coverage; but the contract has not changed, in terms of where it's been. If the member is saying that there is a perception there, because of the market price, I am certain that some will perceive that. I don't dis agree with that because I had members opposite here three years ago saying why don't you raise the dollar amount per bushel of coverage? Why do you keep crop insurance so low? We made the major changes of getting everyone up to the highest bushel per acre.

We went after Ottawa to say let's adjust the entire program for technology and wheat. They allowed it over on the 25-year term, but on the other crops they've only allowed the 15 -year term for statistical purposes. We're doing it every year, in terms of adjusting the program on technology. Quite frank ly, Mr. Chairman, while there have been advances in crop improvements and the like, nevertheless the bulk of the claims, the bulk of the dolla rs paid out under the crop insurance program are for below insured bushels coverage. Those are the claims; that's where the bulk of money is paid out. it's not hail. Mr.

Chairman, during my consultation meetings throughout rural Manitoba, many farmers came to those meetings and said, "I'm only taking crop insurance because I can get hail coverage." Many came to spot loss hail-out because they can get hail coverage; but the records will clearly show that the bulk of the claims are not in hail. The bulk of the claims and the dolla rs paid out are from the all-risk program, where in fact claims are being paid out for bushel coverage that falls below the insured bushels per acre or tonnes per acre coverage, and that's where the bulk of the payouts are on. Mr.

Chairman, I've never sug gested that you in fact, referring to the member's comments on Western Grain and Crop Insur ance, that we have to in fact marry the two programs together, that the only way that can work is farmers having to take Crop Insurance and having to be in Western Grain. lt doesn't have to occur . If a farmer decides that he's not prepared to take crop insurance, as the member suggests, recognizing that the maximum dollar per bushel price support, in the dollars per bushels that he's talking about, will be the amount set by Western Grain.

Whether a farmer takes crop insurance or not, that's up to him, in terms of getting that coverage; but Western Grain will only top up, in terms of what bushels that are there, at a prescribed dollar amount and it won't exceed. Mr. Chairman, just to be very clear on the point I was making, 19 85, the all-risk program paid out $24 628 million in claims. On hail spot loss, $4.7 million in claims, just to make my point very clear that the bulk of the claims are in a loss per bushels per acre. That's really where the losses are. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, I think the Mi nister made my argument on the unique circumstance for this year, wherein he indicated that the vast majority of contract holders chose the higher dollar volume, the higher dollar rate.

I submit to the Mini ster that if you su rveyed your contract holders, I'll bet you three­ quarters of them would say that I have guaranteed myself, regardless of circumstances, $80 per acre, and that if I end up with half the yield - (Interjection) My honourable friend laughs about this, but I'm telling you it's a serious problem because most farmers, in tough times, have picked the higher dollar volume to ensure themselves something around $80-$90 per acre in my area; and they've chosen that dollar volume because that's generally the cost of your fertilizer, your chemical, your seed, your fuel and your cash input costs.

When they come up with half the bushels and they think they're going to have crop insurance contract, supplement to the contract value, they're going to get a sorry dis appointment because the bushels they harvested are deducted at the insured price and not supple mented to the insured price from the market price. I submit that if the Mini ster wanted to survey those farmers, he'd find out that most of them believe that under all circumstances they've purchased that $80 or $90 per acre of coverage.

In reality, they only way they've purchased that dollar volume of insurance from crop insurance is if they have a complete crop failure, and that's the only way they get it. Another area I want to talk to the Minis ter on crop insur ance is the circums tanc e - and we ha d a su bstantial amount of it this year - of over winter claims, where various crops stayed out over winter because of the wet fall and early snow and in the lnterlake incredible amounts of rain.

A number of people will make the proposition to crop insurance that once you hit the fall, and if your crop is over wintered, that basically in most circumstances you've got yourself a total crop loss. I know that the Mi nister is saying that in some crops that are out there, there is grain, it didn't sprout, for whatever reason, and it is harvesta ble. The grade is probably down to feed well, it is feed in wheat - but the bushel volume is there, so that crop insur ance has no obligation to pay because there is a harvestable crop there.

But I submit to the Mini ster that what is happening with people who are dela yi ng their claims, and my honourable colleague, the Member for Ste. Rose, was getting to that point in question period the other day, is that when you have an over-wintered crop and you have stubble sitting there and swaths sitting there, that ground does not dry out nearly as quickly as worked ground.

If you get any amount of rain in the spring such as we did earlier on this spring, you are virtual ly, by saying to the farmer that there is sufficient grain out there, that there is no crop insurance payoff, you are forcing him to take either a loss entirely on last year's crop or seriously jeopardize this year's crop. I know it would cost dollars to the Crop Insurance Corporation. I believe you should give those farmers

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 the option of putting a match in that crop, not harvesting anything. Don't treat the farmer like he's being disho nest and he'll take his claim from crop insurance, sneak out at midnight and harvest it and then plant it the next day, because that's generally the attitude that is there.

If you give that farmer the option of taking his loss last year with the backup of crop insu rance, putting a match to the crop and then getting on with the ground bare and drying so he can work it and at least plant a crop before the 10 th of June and hope for some kind of a better return and a better run at farming this year. I know the Mini ster is going to say, well, we can't do that because there is insured grain there.

But, by golly , in this day and age with the technology and the tightness of planting schedules and everything, anytime a person does not get a crop off in the fall and get his fall work done even, he is setting himself way behind for next year's cropping project. I believe that crop insu rance should recognize that and call an end to a year in the fall when the snow hits and let the farmer burn the crop and get rid of it. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, first of all, I want to comment on the previous comments that I made to the honourable member dealing with the number of farmers who may believe that they have the kind of dollars-per-bushel coverage rather than yield per bushel that he indicates and that may be the impression. I said that I agreed there would likely be a number of farmers who would, in fact, believe that. That's the reason, Mr. Chairman, the corporation does ask for farmers to meet with their agents annually, so that changes in the program, various changes and matters can be gone over with the farmer. In fact, Mr.

Chairman, just under 10 ,000 farmers met with our agents this year. About 75 percent of the farmers who have policies with the corporation have met with agents and these kinds of adminis trative matters are gone over. Now the member makes an argument and makes an asse rtion, I guess anyone can say, yes, let's take it to court and let's see where it happened. There is no way I can say to the honourable member or convince him any differently than his assertion and I won't even attempt to.

He's made the assertion; he's obviously done his mathametics, done his calculations, and he'll be one of those who likely has the financial resources that may want to try it and take it to court and have it tested. There is no way that I would want to say to the honourable member, don't do it. I will encourage the Honourable Member for Pembina to go and take it to court and test it. All I can tell him is what the contract says, clearly, and what we try to do, and explain to farmers. Mr.

Chairman, with respect to the issue of grain being left out over winter and should be, in fact, assessed as having zero production. That's what the member is asser ting. That, regardless of the bushel content of that crop, it should be judged as having zero bushel content on the field. Here's the difficulty that does occur, not only from an insurance point of view, but even from an equity point of view.

The honourable member knows that many farmers either went through with track machines or four-wheel 629 drives, or struggled and took those crops off and harvested them, and then spent the $3,000 or $4,000 or $5,000 on propane to dry all those crops and did get a crop. There were some producers who said, no, I don't intend to wreck my equipment. I don't intend to struggle in this whole area, and I will not take my crop off. I'm not doing it. Mr.

Chairman, if those fields are too wet to seed a crop so that they can't take their crop off in the springtime, and we have had cases where there are crops of 40 and 45 bushels of wheat on the field this spring. They have not been harvested and, in fact, the member mentioned in his comment that it is being taken off as No. 1 feed. That's precisely what is happening both on wheat and barley. So, Mr.

Chairman, the opportunity does exist for farmers to go in and harvest the crop, take it off, and take it off dry, and not incur the additional expense of those farmers who struggled through the mud for three months last fall until it froze up, and some who waited until it froze and took some of those crops off. Should, in fact, the corporation say, yes, this is a zero crop, pay the full amount and let you harvest it and sell it as wheat. MR. D. ORCHARD: No. HON. B. URUSKI: Tha t's what the mem ber is suggesting. MR. D. ORCHARD: I said, let them burn it. Don't treat them as dis honest.

Let them burn it, Bil ly, don't distort things again. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the member is saying, let them burn it. MR. D. ORCHARD: Right. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, what do you say to the other fellow who says, I don't want to burn it. I'm going to take it off. MR. D. ORCHARD: Then that's his choice. HON. B. URUSKI: Well, Mr. Chairman, the crop is still there. The bushels per acre are still there. What is the member saying? Is he saying, because I want to burn it so the land dries out . . . MR. D. ORCHARD: So we can get this year's crop. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, one doesn't know what this year's crop will be. In fact, you may have a better crop on the field than you may in fact get this year. That may be what will be on the land. There may be a better crop on the field from last fall in terms of bushels per acre. Maybe the quality isn't quite there, but certainly the expense of dealing with that crop this spring is not the same as it was last fall. I can tell you, because most farmers who are taking their crop off this spring are taking it off dry.

They don't have to put it through the driers and the expensive propane and all tho se additional expenses that farmers who took those crops off last fall had to incur. That's precisely

Thursday, 5 June, 1986 what many of them have said. I'm not touching the field last fall, it's too wet. And quite frankly, if it's too wet this spring to get on, no amount of burning at this point in time will in fact dry it out before they can get on. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Member for Lac du Bonnet MR. C. BAKER: I think personal ly, Mr.

Chairman, that I agree with some of the comments made by the Honourable Member for Pembina, but as far as class action is concerned, I'm just wondering, maybe we could get together, he and I could get together on the fees and initiative class action, but I'd be reluctant to do that because I would think that any sensible court would say, okay, your dollars per bushel is down. But after all, there was federal deficiency payment coming, so we have to add that on; there is this two-price wheat system, we have to add that on.

I'm just wondering if a court would look at that realistically in that fashion because there is more. Crop insurance provides bushel coverage. Stabili zation provides price coverage. I supp ose if you wanted to add in the two-price wheat system, you have that increase in price. So wouldn't the court