Manitoba Hansard — 16 June 1986 (Sitting 27B, 33rd Legislature, 1st Session)

33-1-27b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 16 June, 1986. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - HIGHWAYS AND TR ANSPORTATION MR. CHAIRMAN, M. Dolin: The Committee dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Highways, come to order. We are dealing with Item 6. on Page 97. lt was agreed that we will deal with it generically. 6.(a), (b), (

c) and (d), dealing with Driver and Vehicle Licensing, Management Services, Licensing, Safety and M PlC. The Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We were just getting started and I did have a couple of things that I have brought up and I would like to bring up again. One thing in particular, I wonder if the Minister can advise what the policy is on licensing of elderly drivers, people who have reached a certain age who, in some cases, might be not talented enough to be driving. What safeguards do we have to see that these people are brought in for re-testing and things of that nature?

Is there a policy by the government or do they just pick up people or ask people to come in for re-testing who have committed some sort of an offence or . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Highways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a policy of discriminatory attention or practice with regard to elderly people. lt's based on their driving record and, of course, doctors are required under the law to report any cases or situations or any individuals, during routine examinations, who might be hazardous drivers because of, say, eyesight or other situations that might arise.

We certainly allow the declaration on the back of the licence to influence the kind of licence that the individual would have. If they indicate that they have a problem with something or other that might affect their ability to drive, that is then followed up and special tests or medicals will be required, and perhaps a restricted licence on that basis. So really, the act requires a doctor to report. There's a declaration, which means that the individual must report any changes in their condition that are obvious.

If there is an accident or a numb er of infractions that the driver has incurred over a short period of time, no matter what their age, then they may be called in for a re-test or something like that or, if there's a report from police that a driver should be tested in their estimation, that person may be tested, that kind of approach. I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that currently my unde rstanding is that drivers over the age of 65 account for only about 4 percent of the accidents in the province. 925 So it is not something that is an extremely large problem in terms of accidents and causes. MR. A.

KOVNATS: Can the Honourable Minister advise how long this non-discriminatory practice has been in effect? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I'm advised it's been in effect for years. I don't know if it was ever the case that there was any other practice. MR. A. KOVNATS: Well, now I bring up the point. I think you're a little bit late in being able to advise my dear old dad, who has passed away now, and send him a letter of apology because my dad never had a driving infraction, moving infraction, against him under any circumstances.

At the age of 80 years, they took his licence away, by him not being able to pass the exam, but he had no reason to be called in, no reason at all. He just received a letter stating that, because of his age, he would be invited to come in and pass the test, and he couldn't pass the test, and rightly so. At age 80, he really wasn't good enough to be driving and we tried to discourage him. What we had suggested to him at that time was: "You know, dad, just accept it; this is the way it is." There has got to be all kinds of other people like him.

Is this a unique case that would have happened in the case of my father? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd have to ask, how many years ago was that? Was that during this administration's time, or was this 10 , 15 or 20 years ago? Obviously, I can't answer a question dealing with the previous administrations. MR. A. KOVNATS: Well, as I suggested, I had asked the question to find out how long this non-discriminatory practice was in effect.

So, if the Honourable Minister can answer that question, then I'd be able to work out somewhere around how long back it was. lt was before the Honourable Minister was the Minister. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I think that it may be, and that was obviously before this registrar was the registrar and perhaps before the previous one was, as well, because I think he was appointed in 1980 or'81, somewhere in there - Carl Procuik. So, we're going back now to a couple of registrars and also a couple of governments perhaps. I don't know if it has changed during those governments. All I can say is the policy we have in place now.

I could ask any of the members what the policies were 50 years ago and they couldn't answer either. MR. A. KOVNATS: I'm not talking about 50 years ago, Mr. Chairman; I'm talking about 5 to 10 years ago, somewhere in that area, which is in the time of, I would think, the last administration, or it could have even

Monday, 16 June, 1986 been under the Sterling Lyon administration. That's not what I'm trying to establish. I think we're trying to establish something to protect the rights of elderly people with dignity because some of them shouldn't be driving cars. There's no doubt in my mind about it at all. But, at this point, I would like to ask the Honourable Minister, have any plans been made? A driver's licence is such an important item.

You really find out when you break the law and you lose your licence or you have speeding tickets and drinking offe nces and things like that and that driver's licence is taken away from you. Now that is a real punishment, and rightly so, because whenever you go in to cash a cheque or to use any kind of identification, they always ask you, do you have a driver's licence, and one other piece of identification, and that gets you an opening, you're able to cash cheques, you're able to identify yourself.

Is there any way that elderly people who have lost their licence, because it is a traumatic experience, is there any way that they could be given a special licence - and I've asked Ministers this before and it's such an important item. Can the Honourable Minister advise whether there's been any discussion in issuing a driver's licence that isn't valid for driv ing , but ju st for identification? My dad had a licence for 60 years and then all of a sudden they take it away from him. He says, "Abe, see if you can get me my licence. I promise I won't drive a car." lt was just that he was so proud of his licence.

Is there anything that could be done to see that elderly people - and it's too late for my dad now - but is there any way that we could give elderly people a non-driving driver's licence? lt sounds kind of ridiculous but it's an important thing. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that it is a traumatic experience for people to lose their licence, particularly elderly people, when they very often view it as being synonymous perhaps with youth or something like that, and it is a blow to their feeling of well-being, I would think, in many cases.

I don't know that it provides so many obstacles, in terms of their ability to cash cheques or provide evidence of their identity. They do have, in many cases, I guess a senior citizen's card as well, that perhaps replaces a driver's licence, in terms of the benefits they can get in many different places they may go, whether it be for transit purposes or into various entertainment; they get a discount on buses or whatever it might be.

So I think that probably serves as a non-driving driver's licence for identification purposes and I don't think that it would be possible - or even suitable - for the driver and vehicle licencing to start issuing licences that are play licences, so to speak, in terms of say, here's your licence but you can't use it to drive. So I don't think the proper place to do it is through the Motor Vehicle Branch. MA. A. KOVNATS: The disappointing part about this, Mr. Chairman, is that we do play with them. We do give personalized driver's licences and it is a form of revenue.

Now we're not talking about the licences that they put in their pockets . . . HON. J. PLOHMAN: The plates. 926 MA. A. KOVNATS: Plates, I'm sorry, that's the correct terminology. I stand corrected and I appreciate the correction, because actually that was the first error I've made since I've been in the Legislature. A MEMBER: Well, I'm sorry. MA. A. KOVNATS: Yes. But we do give personalized plates and it is a form of revenue, extra revenue, for it, and it seems to me that the government took advantage of it and has increased the price of these personalized plates.

That's fair game, and I think that there could be some revenue gained from people who would just have this little bit of paper in their pocket - what is it, five bucks for a driver's licence? A MEMBER: Twenty bucks. MA. A. KOVNATS: Twenty bucks? Boy oh boy, it's a heck of a lot better form of revenue than the plates. I would think that it would be a tremendous idea and I'd give it to you for free. I really should n't because you're a member of the other party, but it is an important part of raising money.

This group has gained a great deficit that we condemn them for, they're looking for ways of reducing the deficit, and I think this is a tremendous idea. Look at all of the older people that would be contributing to it and would be happy to contribute to it. You could probably charge them a little bit less, you don't have to charge them the full amount but you can probably charge them a little bit less, and they'd walk around proud. You might even gain a few extra votes because they would look at the New Democrats who would initiate this program and say: aren't they a nice bunch of people?

I would straighten them around in a big hurry but, you know, this is what would happen. Would the Honourable Minister please consider it? Also consider, if you're going to do it at that point, then maybe you could consider issuing drivers' licences to people under 16 years of age strictly for identification because I think that in some cases there would be some people who'd like it just as a plaything like we have with these drivers' plates. Would the Honourable Minister please consider such an idea? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, I appreciate that the ideas are free.

Sometimes they're worth as much as you pay for them, but I'm not saying that this is the situation in this case. The member perhaps might be knowledgeable of the fact that the Liquor Commission may provide ident ification for young people for identification purposes, I believe, with a picture on it. There are some provinces that do that, I'm sure. I guess what the member is really talking about is the pedestrian licence. I'm not so sure that that would go over particularly well with the electorate. They'd say what next are they going to require licences for?

So 1 think that it's something that perhaps should be done through a different agency of government as opposed to this one, but if anyone feels strongly in the department, they want to pursue it further, I would like to see their report. I don't believe it's the proper area. I think a driver's licence is for driving privileges and it makes no sense

Monday, 16 June, 1986 to have a nondriving driver's licence. lt's just confusion. Can you imagine the police officers stopping these people who aren't sup posed to be driving? They'll say, well, I've got a driver's licence. They won't mention, of course, that it doesn't give them any privilege to drive. So I don't think it would be sensible. MR. A. KOVNATS: I can see the police stopping people and they would say that they have a non-driving driver's licence because we do catch all kinds of people who don't have a licence at all, so there really wouldn't be any problem there.

I don't want to prolong this type of discussion. I think that possibly if the Minister, without any great expense, would just kind of detail somebody to look into it and maybe we could come up with a gold licence for 50 years of driving, or something like that. lt's something that could raise some revenue and I would think it's not a stupid idea; it may not be a great idea but it's something that should be considered. HON. J. PLOHMAN: There's the possi bil ity, Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt, we may have non-banking credit cards, as well, that might go over pretty well. MR. A.

KOVNATS: See, I come up with a good idea and then I get - (Interjection) - That's right. Mr. Chairman, he never would have thought of that great idea unl ess I had given him some way of identifying it. I have been talking to some people and there are restricted licences. Now, these licences that are restricted, it's for an elderly person to drive, like a farmer who's out in the middle of a farm, to drive into town and do their shopping and drive back again.

Really, it's a little bit dangerous and I know that you have to be very, very careful on who you issue these restricted licences to, but do we have to identify these restricted licences by great big "restriction" on them so that when they bring them out for identi fication pur poses, everybody looks at him and says, oh, that's a restricted licence. Does it say that it's restricted because of drinking or because of old age, or things of that nature?

Could we not be more un iform and have these licences similar to others so that they wouldn't be discriminated against when they bring out their restricted licence for identification purposes? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, there certainly are a lot of good ideas tonight. I never thought of that before. I haven't particularly seen various restricted licences and thought that they might be embarrassing to people. MR. A. KOVNATS: I think they are. HON. J. PLDHMAN: I imagine they wouldn't show them to an awful lot of people then, except when requested.

So it's not going to be a case where they're continuously embarrassed at, perhaps, having to wear them on their forehead. Restricted licences are for work purposes, many times, as well as for elderly people. Many times they have a restricted licence that restricts them to a certain area around their homes, a near distance, around their 927 town or whatever the case may be. I don't think there's any way to identify them, un less perhaps by colour, not having this word "restriction," it would have different colour codes or different kinds of licences perhaps.

Maybe that would be as embarrassing as the word "restriction" on it, because it would quickly identify the person by the colour . So it seems to me it's necessary to have something there that says that. Again, for enforcement purposes, it's important that an officer can see immediately that there is a restriction. MR. A. KOVNATS: I'm going to leave this now. I come up with the good ideas. lt's up to you to work out the details. I would like to also bring into effect at this point now special drivers' licences for people who are driving trucks or any kind of a vehicle with hazardous or dangerous goods.

Is there special training that is provided by this department with a special licence to enable these people to drive vehicles carrying hazardous materials or dangerous goods? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, the transportation and handling of hazardous goods is under the ju risdiction of the Department of Environment, Workplace Safety and Health. The Department of Environment, I understand, offers some courses in this area, as well as individual trucking companies. As well, our traffic inspectors are trained but, of course, that's not for driving purposes.

The question was about driving, whether drivers - I understand the question was as to whether drivers would be able to receive any special training. MR. A. KOVNATS: That's right. HON. J. PLOHMAN: My und erstanding at the present time is that's offered through the Environment Department, as well as individual companies. But we do not have in this department, I understand, any special courses of this nature, nor do I think we sponsor any courses through the Manitoba Safety Council for this purpose at this time. MR. A.

KOVNATS: Can the Honourable Minister advise whether these people who do drive these type of vehicles have a special, identified driver's licence? HON. J. PLDHMAN: lt may be. The associations across Canada are working on a national safety code that will have some requirements for inclusion of training for people who are handling and transporting hazardous goods. There may be, at some point in the future, a special classification of licence that will identify a driver who has these qualifications but, at the present time, there isn't any, I'm told. MR. A. KOVNATS: What are we going to do?

Are we not going to take any action in this regard? lt seems that it's such an important thing because, you know, I've been after the Minister of Environment. I've asked him a few questions on this sort of thing. You know, let's just take, for instance, the training of Natives in Northern Manitoba to drive these vehicles. it's an

Monday, 16 June, 1986 important thing. They have not been used to it and we are training them because of the workplace and I've changed my attitude a little bit in this regard and I do support it. We can't put them into the workplace without being properly trained and identified - not as Northern Natives - but of drivers of vehicles that are carrying dangerous goods and I think, for their protection, there should be some sort of a specially identified driver's licence. I don't think that we can just sit on it, Mr. Chairman.

I think it has to be done right away, before there's somebody to say, see, I told you and I'm sorry it's happened. How long will we have to wait? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, this is a new area that is being regulated. Some of the regulations have come into effect just last Ju ly, and others I think February 1, 1987. lt's an area that has been very complicated and very complex regulations have been developed; and there's other areas that are still being developed and they will be done with some uni formity across the cou ntry, as opposed to in isolation here in Manitoba.

I think that the CCMTA, which is the Canadian Conference of Motor Transport Administrators, will be dealing with this issue over the next year or two and Manitoba will be a very eager participant in that development. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The topic that I would like to discuss with the Minister - I don't know just exactly where it fits in. I don't know if it fits exactly in this particular department; I don't know if it fits in the Attorney-General's Department.

People are being charged - and I'm talking about radar detection devices. They are legal to be sold in Manitoba and recently one of the hardware people in Winkler got himself quite a few of these radar detection devices and, of course, they went like hot cakes. So they're absolutely and perfectly legal to be sold. They charge federal sales tax, provincial sales tax; they are made in Ontario and apparently they are go od. Apparently they work well.

But the problem is that this particular chap who is caught with having one of these in his van, had a particular problem with a particular RCMP who is watching his place like a hawk and he did catch his young boy with a tricycle, driving on an abandoned road allowance and he didn't have any licence - one of these Honda deals - and that was perfect ly within his rights to do. He had no licence and he was charged. That's good, but in doing so, he saw this chap's van in the yard, opened up the door, went and looked inside this chap's van and he saw this radar detection device in the van.

Now he was waiting for this van to leave the yard, and it just so happened that this chap's brother was driving the van. He left the yard - he lives about two miles out of town - to go do a little bit of shopping, and as soon as the van hit the road, then the RCMP was there. He seized the radar detection device and charged the gentleman, this chap's brother. 928 Now this chap thought it was unfair that his brother should be charged with it, so he says, okay, it's my device and so on, so he was going to take the rap for it. But the que stion now is that there's no way this guy is going to pay the fine.

First of all, the device was not switched on; it was not in use, and you can only be charged if it is in use. He was absolutely perfectly within his legal rights to have this thing. lt was not being used. The RCMP seized it from him - they still have it in their possession - and to make matters bad and worse, nobody knows where they're at. I've discussed this with the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General says, yes, your fellow has a real good claim.

He says the RCMP officer had absolutely no right, in his opinion at least, and he hasn't come down with a decisive conclusion to seize this device because it was legal to have it. lt was not switched on, so he should not have been charged. I just wanted to bring this to the attention of the Minister and I want him to get together with the Attorney-General and I want him to, somewhere along the line, determine radar detection devices. Either they're illegal or they're legal. If they're illegal, then they should also be illegal to be sold and we'r e not going to have any problem.

But the way we are at the present time, there is a problem. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm aware of this case because the individual has written to me and I did refer it to my colleagues, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Attorney-General's office, to see whether there's anything they could do in that regard because it is a rather awkward frustrating situation and one that doesn't make a lot of sense. I guess if the devices are illegal to use or to have in one's possession - I'm not certain whether it's - and we're jus t looking the relevant

section up in The Highway Traffic Act to see what the wor ding is - whether it's illegal to have them in possession or just illegal to be caught using them. But in any event, and seeing that it would be better not to allow them to be sold, I don't know how many products there are in the province right now - or anywhere for that matter - that are banned from sale. There might be certain kinds of guns and things like that. There's probably a lot of things that cannot be used but may still be sold, but that's an area that I want my colleague of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to look at. I und erstand that

Section 203( 1) "Radar Detection Devices" states that no person shall drive a motor vehicle that is equipped, or equip a motor vehicle with a device for detecting radar speed determination equipment; or have possession of a device - or have possession of a device - for detecting radar speed determination equipment in a motor vehicle. Now I guess he could argue that it wasn't for that purpose, but it's stated clearly that it's not even to be in possession or permit a motor vehicle which he is the registered owner to become or to remain equi pped with a device for detecting radar speed testing equipment.

So it is quite broad in that regard. I notice the member mentioned using a three wheeler on the road and it wasn't licensed. Obviously there are some violations

Monday, 16 June, 1986 involved there as well. Three wheelers are registerable as snowmobiles under The Snowmobile Act and if he was driving on a road, another infraction. They're not sup posed to be operated on the road. MR. A. BROWN: Okay, he realized that they were wrong over there and since then they've licensed the three wheeler, so now they're within their legal rights over there and the boy is driving it with a licence. But the reason I mentioned the tricycle at all was it on account of the tricycle that the RCMP looked into the van and detected the radar device in there.

Outside of that, he would never have known there was a radar device in that particular van. lt was as a result of that - that he was waiting for this particular van to leave the yard - so that he could immediately apprehend him and make him pay a fine. The act seems to be fairly explicit on radar detector devices. Then the question is, why are they allowed to be sold? If it really is illegal to have them within your automobile or whatsoever, then surely we should go one step further and make it illegal for them to be sold. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Again, Mr.

Chairman, I've asked my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to look into that. In the meantime, until I receive any answer to that, I don't want to make any further comments on restricting the sale. I just want to mention, as well, that there are further sections in the act, 203.2, that provides for a peace officer, when finding such a device, to seize that device. lt also tells what's supposed to be done with it after seizure. So, again, all of those sections are covered.

But the member raises, I think, a point that I feel sympathetic to, and I'm endeavouring to get a report from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Attorney-General as to whether there is something that can be done with regard to restricting the sale. Since it's income coming to the province from sales tax and so on, I guess, on the device and yet they can't be used in the province, there's absolutely no sense to have them sold here. MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(a)( 1) - the Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister if he can tell us approximately how many licenced drivers we have in Manitoba. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, my un derstanding is there are about 600,000 at the present time. MR. J. McCRAE: Mr. Chairman, would the Minister have figures available so that he could tell us how many of those some 600,000 require medical certificates each year in order to renew their drivers' licences? HON. J. PLOHMAN: There are a number of categories. First of all, the Medical Review Committee that sits reviewed about 18 5 cases this past year, and issued licences.

That isn't an awfu l lot, but the Registrar can require ... MR. J. McCRAE: Mr. Chairman, if I could clarify, I'm not referring, Mr. Chairman, to cases that would go for 929 a medical review or to a board or anything like that. What I'm after is the number of people who's answers, I suppose, to the questions put on their applications would require that they have a medical certificate before their renewal is issued. I don't think the 18 5 would refer to that. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: I'm informed that the Registrar sends out about 30,000 requests for medicals each year - (Interjection) - well the member says, that's more like it. I never was indicating that was the full extent of medical involvement, I just indicated those were the ones that had come before the Medical Review Panel. The 30,000 is the Registrar's requests. They processed 31 ,263 medical reports and, as a result of that, 1, 021 drivers' licences were cancelled; 602 drivers failed to meet the medical standards.

Out of those 1, 021, 601 failed to meet the medical standards, and 419 failed to comply with the specific requirements. There were 1, 029 declasses to a lower class of licence, either 2, 3, 4; 234 to drivers for failing to meet the medical standards of that 1, 029; and 795 to drivers for failing to comply. There were 1, 550 driver interviews as a result, 1, 550 driver tests completed by a driver examiner, and driving assessments completed by the occupational therapist at the Rehabilitation Hospital were processed, 1, 550. That involves both the interviews and the tests.

And 262 medical conditional licences issued; 117 of those had restrictions placed on their drivers' licences. So the number of cases where action is taken is quite small compared to the number of medical reports required and requested. MR. J. McCRAE: Mr. Chairman, I think that's the type of information I was after in order to make the point that, of course, it's necessary for us to ensure safety on our highw ays, but I wonder if there's not some better way to do this. I can tell you of an example that came to my attention this past weekend, Mr. Chairman.

I had occasion, along with the Minister of Employment Services and Econ omic Secur ity, to attend a dinner put on in Brandon for a young fellow by the name of Richard Beecroft, who is a multiple sclerosis patient, he's 36 years old. He has great difficulty walking three blocks, but he has logged 36,000 miles around the world on his three-wheeled bicycle. I don't like to call it a tricycle, but it's a full sized tricycle. His plan is to ride this tricycle 40,000 kilometres, which would be the equivalent to what it would be to go around the equator of the earth. He's done 36,000, and he goes from here to Toronto.

Jus t on that, honourable members might be interested in knowing that, on Thursday, Mr. Beecroft will be here at the Legislature at 12: 30 so, if anyone's available, they could slip out and cheer him on. He's only got a little further to go. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, to get back to the point I was making, at the dinner I had occasion to talk this matter over with a multiple sclerosis sufferer who is required annually to get a doctor's certificate. Now this costs her, she tells me, $40 every year. This is something she has to pay, but nobody else seems to have to.

At least, drivers who don't have to get medical certificates are not put to that expense.

Monday, 16 June, 1986 So I just would like to put that on the record, that those people who do come through with flying colours year after year are put to that additional expense, and it's like an added cost for their drivers' licences or a tax or whatever you'd like to call it. But I'd like to make that representation, and ask the Minister to look into it and see if there's some other way to handle this so that people who are put to this each year are not, in a sense, discriminated against for their illness or for their condition. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Well I'm advised by the Registrar that staff in the medical area in the Motor Vehicle Licensing Division follow the Canadian Medical Association Drivers' Guidelines that are recognized right across Canada. So they do not request a medical certificate on a whim or in a frivolous way. lt's done as a result of the guidelines and their

interpretation thereof. Now we can have these guidelines reviewed as to how stringently the requests are being applied but they do apply right across Canada so they're not unique to Manitoba. I'm also advised that the Canadian Medical Association is currently reviewing those standards and is going to be issuing a new set of guidel ines in September . Whether they will be stricter or more lenient or whatever, I'm not certain, but they are currently being reviewed. MR. J. McCRAE: Mr.

Chairman, I would leave it to the experts to decide what the criteria should be for road worthiness of drivers, and I make no comment about that. I believe that our highways should be as safe as possible. I wonder if the Minister of Health could shed some light on this. I thought I saw him about to speak a few minutes ago. If he knows anything about this, if he could help us solve this problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: If you'll excuse me, I don't think that's in order for this Estimate. I would sugge st you bring that up at the Health Estimates under the appropriated item - (Interjection) - The Minister of Highways. HON.

J. PLOHMAN: There was a previous question that the member had and I just wanted to put it on the record. He was asking about 34th Street in Brandon; about the Highway Traffic Board hearing about the speed limit. I'm advised that 34th Street is not a provi ncial hig hway or ju risdiction. There was no response from Highways requested for that hearing. The application was reviewed by the Board and the decision was based on their analysis.

So the members of the board, from the information I had, made their decision in isolation from any advice that they may have received from the Highways department so we cannot attach the blame or accolades that the board may deserve as a result of their decisions to the staff advice in that case. That was a question that was raised a couple of days ago. MR. J. McCRAE: Mr. Chairman, when we come to Boards and Commissions I'll deal with that. I think we're still on Licensing. I appreciate the answer from the Minister, even if it should have come up later on.

Maybe I can make a few comments about that later on. 930 The point is, on the matter of Renewal of Drivers' Licences, Mr. Chairman, that many of these people who have to have that annual certificate see their doctors probably several times a year as it is. So why should they have to

schedule a special appointment for this purpose; if the doctor knows the condition of the patient, why cannot the doctor simply issue a certificate? If that's all he does, does the cost of a doctor's certificate amount to $40.00? This was the figure that was given to me by the person I was talking to so I can't su bstantiate it any further than that. But it seems to me that perhaps certificates are issued without the necessity of actually visiting the doctor if the patients are seeing the doctors on a regular basis. But is seems to be a point, as far as I'm concerned, that should be addressed . HON. J.

PLOHMAN: I think there are individual doctors who would attempt to facilitate this for individuals who want to

schedule their annual medical checkup around the time that their license comes up for renewal and accomplish it at the same time and then may not have to pay that additional fee. Many doctors, perhaps, would not charge an additional $40.00. I think that's a sensible way to do whenever possible, but I don't know if all doctors would provide that service without making the additional charge. MR. J. McCRAE: Mr. Chairman, I just comment that I don't know if all patients in this province organize their time so well that they would make an appointment to deal with this matter at the same time as some other matter.

In fact I would visualize many, many thousands of these people making special appointments just so that they can get their driver's licence certificates. I believe the Minister's department might want to look into this and see if there's not something better we can do for these people. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, again the member may have some suggestions as to what better can be done.

The fact is, as he describes, there are a lot of people who go for a special medical examination to satisfy their licence requirements; however, others may feel that that's somePJing they don't want to go through that many times and they may choose to do it when they go for a regular medical checkup. I don't know what other alternative there is for getting the kind of information that's required for those drivers who may be at risk in this regard . Again, some suggestions would certainly be followed up. Maybe the Minister of Health does have some suggestions. He seems almost ready to speak again. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Boniface. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, in the experience that I've had, - (Interjection)- I have some sympathy with what the member from Brandon said. There is a line, a place on that report that a doctor must fill, that you can fill for how many years, and feel he is safe but that, for awhile, was disregarded. I was so damn mad; I had to go every year and I was watching him write three years or so and this wasn't a - I think I've got it licked now, but it was a nuisance and I brought in

Monday, 16 June, 1986 in committee a few years ago. I think that - I don't know if it's automatic, once you 've had a heart attack, for instance, and maybe they should look at that line because the doctor should know. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: I wonder if the Minister could tell us; the driv ers' licences are now bilingual and it's been brought to my attention that one individual answered all the questions on the driver's licence in Ukranian. Could the Minister tell us, does he have Ukranian

interpretation facilities on staff or do they not read the answers to the questions on the driver's licence? HON. J. PLOHMAN: We do have a Deputy Minister who is able to handle that, no problem. MR. D. BLAKE: He was issued a license without any problem. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, I'm advised that if it can be interpreted, that they accept the declarations as they are filled out; however, if they're defaced in any way; portions scratched off because someone does not like what's written on there in whatever language it may be, then a new form is sent out and they ask them to complete it in a clean way without defacing any of it. I'm told that the staff makes every effort to interpret what is there. MR. D. BLAKE: Under the safety program, could the Minister bring us up to date on the Driver Safety Program that's conduc ted through the schools?

What involvement does the Department have? What contribution do they make toward the testing program, and how successfu l has it been? HON. J. PLOHMAN: We have a program that is expanding, Mr. Chairman, every year. lt's been very success ful. We have the Public Insurance Corporation involved very closely in the program as well, because obviously good drivers are a benefit to the Manitoba Public Insur ance Corporation - fewer payouts for insurance purposes. So it is in their interests.

They currently provide $11 0 per student and last year we had some 7,950 students enrolled, the actual enrolment for 19 85-86 - 7,950; $11 0 per student was paid by M PlC; $30 was charged to students - that was lowered a couple of years of ago from $40 so that it is more accessible to more students, and the department pays $27 per student, for a total of $1 67 per student, for both the classroom and the practical part of the program. We're budgeting, I believe for 8,300 this coming year, so it is continuing to grow if it's filled as anticipated. MR. D.

BLAKE: The enrolment age now is down to fifteen-and-one-half; is that correct? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, almost all of the divisions in the province now are a part of that fifteen-and-one-half year old program. MR. D. BLAKE: Are the driver instructors paid for out of those fees or are they paid separately by the school division? 931 HON. J. PLOHMAN: They are paid, Mr. Chairman, for their work as driver instructors out of this funding - the $16 7 per student. MR. D. BLAKE: Does the Minister have any figur es on the failure rate of those people enrolled?

I guess some of them might just drop out for other reasons, but are there any statistics on the failure rate? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I like to look at it the other way around. I'm told the success rate is 95.5 percent. MR. D. BLAKE: 4.5 percent . . . HON. J. PLOHMAN: 4.5 percent do not make it. MR. D. BLAKE: Not bad. Are there any statistics kept on how many lose their licence in the first year, after they're issued a driver's licence? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: I imagine that kind of information could be developed from existing information that is probably on the compu ter, if it was programmed properly, but there is no current system to retrieve that kind of information. MR. D. BLAKE: Under Management Services, Salaries and Other Expenditures, I wonder if the Minister might must enlarge a little bit on those two figures in a ballpark way and what they cover? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Management Services includes 71. 25 SY's, 1, 77 1 ,400 for Salaries for those 71. 25 SY's; and then there's 1, 309,80 0 that is for Other Expend itur es, a reduction in this past year of 221 ,000.00. The Appropriation provides for salary, travel and office expenses of the regist rar, includin g emcompassing senior executive staff within the division, financial services related to collection, accounting, distribution and reporting of all government revenues, and costs associated with the driver and licensing division.

Provisions of costs and expend itur es for the development, implementation, and maintenance of systems and data proces sing, training services; providing training and development of divisional staff and certain outside agencies; ongoing writing and revision of manuals facilitating delivery of various programs administered by the division; distribution and promotion of highway safety information; disbursement of grants related to defensive driving programs; traffic injury research foundation and the Canada Safety Council, Manitoba Safety Council and public information campaigns, membership in national associations.

If you want me to go into the responsibilities of the division, the Minister's Highway Safety Programs through the driver improvement, safety driver testing, maintenance of drivers' records relating to accidents, invol vement and convictions for traffic violations, Minister's vehicle, safety inspection programs and matters related to vehicle registration, not specifically dele gated to the Manitoba Pub lic In suranc e Corporation. The correlation of activities of each directorate to ensure smooth delivery of programs and provide safe,

Monday, 16 June, 1986 satisfactory service to the general public, government department and other agencies; monitoring of the distribution of approved funds in accordance with departmental budget guidelines; and objectives for each fiscal year to ensure they are applied un iformly throughout the province. Such services are provided to 11 programs in the division through seven branch offices and more than 225 driver-licensing agents throughout the province - and this is a number of other areas including training services - but I'll leave it there and see whether the member has specific questions. MR. D.

BLAKE: No I just wanted to get some general information on it. Possibly we could cover it now, under the Manitoba Public In surance Cost-Sharing Agreement, I wonder if the Minister could tell us what the arrangments are now on cost-sharing? I know some time back, there was great studies and negotiations going on on an equitable sharing of the costs and it might be a good time to cover it now and then we're finished with it. HON. J. PLOHMAN: A couple of years ago, I had indicated in the Estimates that the reason for a large decrease in this area - it's actually under 6.(d) . MR. D. BLAKE: Yes. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: . . . that we were reviewing the cost-sharing arrangement with a view to having a smaller amount paid by the Department of Highw ays and Transportation and cost more suitably attributed to the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation to be attributed to their operation. We were a little optimistic, however, after final negotiations took place and a report filed through the Department of Finance.

They reviewed the former arrangement and developed a number of options, identified reasons why there should be changes made, and after a lot of discussion, there was a mutual agreement that resulted in a saving to the department of 850,000 per year, as opposed to the department's request or feelings that it should be closer to 3.9, actually closer to 4 million change. So there's a revised formula that was developed and I could provide that information. lt's quite technical but there were two sect ions to the agreement: the administrative cost-sharing agreement and the vehicle agent commissions and flat fees.

Both of those were reviewed ; formerly there was a sharing of 55-45 basis between the two organizations, and as a result of this review, there was a change of $1. 5 million drop in expenses and a $750,000 increase in revenues, so a net difference of 750,000 there, and another change of $10 0,000 in the vehicle agent commissions and flat fees, a benefit to the department. So that netted out at $850,000 change between those two components of the agreement. So it was agreed to by both parties, and felt that it was as fair as could be expected under the circums tances.

Although the positions that the department put forward were rationalized and felt to be legitimate, there wasn't mutual agreement on it, so it was felt that it was best to work out something that was agreed upon, and this was as close as they could come. 932 MR. D. BLAKE: I think there are some others that want some questions. I jus t wanted to ask the Minister, I want to get into rail line abandonment somewhere in the Estimates. Where would be an opportune time to cover that? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Where's that committee situation?

We can do it under Capital, probably more appropriately than here, but there really is no specific appropriation where there are any dollars allocated to it from this department. Land Acquisition really carries out the program, but there is a committee made up of a number of departments and the Hig hways Department representation is part of it, so it can be done under Capital. MR. D. BLAKE: All right, let's do it under Capital. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What I was basically wanting to do at the time you were speaking of the medical forms that had to be filled out, I think basically it is the doctors' report - I mean, I know from my own instance where I had to have the report every year for about eight years, and then the doctor asked me at that point, how many years since you've had your attack? What I told him is about eight years. Well he says, you're completely recovered. From then on, there were no further reports having to be put in. So I basically think it's a medical doctor's decision as to how ... But in those days, it was only $15 .00. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Was there a question there? No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Did the member have a question? Did the member have a question wanting comment? MR. R. NORDMAN: Just a comment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a comment. Is the Member for Rhineland here? The Member for Riel. MR. G. DU CHARME: Back to the cost-s haring agreement, could the Minister explain what that entails, what shares or what costs? Does this include postage and all papers that come to and for the agents acting for the Motor Vehicle Branch? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: As I indicated earlier, it is qui te technical and detailed, and I haven't been involved directly with this for about a year since the details were finalized, but I can certainly provide some information to the member on this Administrative Cost-Sharing Agreement.

Under the terms of the previous Administrative Cost Sharing Agreement, the division of Driver and Vehicle Licensing carried out a detailed monitoring and record keeping system to identify every element of expense incurred in the driver licence insurance system that could be considered shareable with M PlC, because the expenditure resulted in a benefit to MPIC. The Manitoba Public In surance Corporation performed a similar exercise to track every element of

Monday, 16 June, 1986 expense incur red on the vehicle insurance registration system which they administered, to isolate elements of expense that could be considered shareable with the Division of Driver and Vehicle Licensing , because the expenditure resulted in a benefit to that divis ion. Each party applied a subjective degree of shareabil ity to each element of expense on a percentage basis incurred on their respective systems to determine the overall shareable costs of each system .

The Division of Driver and Vehicle Licensing was responsible for 55 percent of the shareable costs of each system, while MPIC was respons ible for the remaining 45 percent of the costs, based upon the approximate use of data elements within each system and resulting in a net transfer payment from the Division of Driver and Vehicle Licensing to MPIC . It is estimated that, under the terms of the previous agreement, the cost to the Division of Driver and Vehicle Licensing for the 1986-87 fiscal year would have been approximately $1.5 million .

This former agreement was fraught with inequities and administrative problems, and I can list a number of them . Neither party to the agreement had any control over the other party's operating expenses , but yet was responsible for sharing their expenses. Therefore, neither party could control the expenditures made from the respective budgets of the other.

Due to the nature of government organization , many costs incurred by the Division of Driver and Vehicle Licensing which were directly related to the operation of the driver licence insured system were directly paid by other government departments, for example, postage, payroll, personnel costs , building maintenance and so on. These costs were excluded from the agreement , because the costs were not paid directly by that Division of Driver and Vehic le Licensing.

Therefore, MPIC benefited from these expenditures without any costs to them, while Driver and Vehicle Licensing was required to pay to MPIC 55 percent of like costs incurred through the operation of the vehicle insurance registration system . So there was an inequity there. The determination of the shareable portion of each salary or expenditure was solely at the discretion of the party, in operational control of each system. Even after extensive analysis by both parties to dep ict the actual shareable percentage of each elemen t of expense, the results were not completely accurate .

Hundreds of staff hours were expended each year by each party carrying out the research , detailed record keeping and calculations required to maintain the cost sharing records and to produce the annual statement of accou nt. All of this effort was non-productive in terms of service to the public and very expensive . So ther e was a revised agreement put in place.

Under the terms of the revised agreement, approved by Cabinet on November 7, 1985, the concept of cost sharing has been abandoned in favour of a process whereby the costs incurred on each system will be the responsibility of the party who has delegated responsibility for that system .

Therefore, the Division of Driver Vehicle Licensing will pay the full operational costs of the driver licence insurance system while MPIC will pay the full costs associated with the operation of the vehicle insurance registration system. 933 As well, driver licensing collects an administration fee from the public for certain types of transactions processed on the vehic le insurance registration system and these fees are deposited into general government revenue .

The sole purpose in collecting these fees is to partially offset processing costs and as MPIC is now responsible for those costs , under the new agreement , these fees are to be transferred from revenue to MPIC, approximately $750,000 annually. So, the difference then was a $750,000 shift of costs net to MPIC from the Highways Department. The implementation of this agreement has resolved the administrative burden and inequities that were prevalent in the former agreement and allows both parties to the agreement full control over their operating expenses.

The gove rnment will not be required to provide the driver vehic le licensing with any expenditure funding for this agreement because no transfer paymen t will be made to MPIC but will experience a reduction in revenue of approximately $750,000 annually for this year. As the former agreement was projected the cost to the government 1.5 million, annually a savings, as I said earlier , $750,000 annually has been realized. Then there's the other portion in the cost-sharing of agen ts' commissions in flat fees.

It's been estimated that the cost would be $2.87 based on the Consumer Price Index that, after experience , was determ ined to be $2.75 per transaction. MR. G. DUCHARME: Which type? HON. J. PLOHMAN: It's the new vehicle regist rations and renewals of registrations. Therefore, there was a 12 cent saving on each of those which resulted in a $100,000 reduction in the costs that DDVL had to pay to MPIC. That is a net of $850,000 benefit. MR. G. DUCHARME: I thank you for that information.

When MPIC pays an agent a commission, or a fee, or a part fee in his monthly cheque he gets his breakdown for his registration, who determined the cost, in particular, to the agent's commission? How is the cost determined? To give you an example , on a transit permit the agent's fees is .. . To do a transit permit that cost $15 , the agen t's fees to do the transaction is 35 cents. Who would determine that particular cost , MPIC or the registrar? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I'm advised, Mr. Chairman, that these administrative fees are determined by MPIC, as opposed to our department.

This is not a percentage I don't believe, although there is a 5 percent on new insurance and renewables but there's a flat fee. I'm told that if it's a vehicle registration assessment, then it is determined by the Division of Driver and Vehicle Licensing , the fee to be charged. MR. G. DUCHARME: The othe r one is the drive rs' licences that are provided by your department, the out of-town agents are allowed to sell the drivers ' lice nce.

In the city, the in-town or city agents are not allowed; and I think the purpose or the reason had been given in the past years that it was hard to determine the fee or the cost for these, or is there another reason to the

Monday, 16 June, 1986 registrar why the city agents are not participating in the drivers' licence. The only reason why I brought that up is you do have a lot of people that are confused. You do have a lot of people, senior citizens that come into your office that say I'd like to renew and they don't want to go to 1075 or they don't want to go down to Eaton Place; they come in and they're a little confused, because on the drivers' licence it does say, "license agent" and they do get confused with this and then you say, I'm sorry, I can't take them - or the staff say that- and there is that confusion.

I'm wondering why they are allowed in the country and not in the city. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I'm advised, Mr. Chairman, that the policy is in place not only in Winnipeg but in Brandon, Dauphin, Thompson, throughout the province, that where there has been a divisional office, people have to attend that office to get their licence renewed. That has been a practice that hasn't been changed for many years, at least 15 years. MR. G.

DUCHARME: Just for your consideration and maybe make it more clear on the drivers' licence that it's not an Autopac agency, it says a license agency. lt does confuse the public. lt says take it to your license agency and it does confuse. HON. J. PLOHMAN: That's a valid point. I'll look into whether there should be some clarification. MR. G. DUCHARME: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could get a little clearer understanding of what the Minister is requesting in terms of his new agreement with M PlC and the Motor Vehicle Branch.

I believe this was an area that was su bject to review back, if my memory serves me correctly, about 1980. I forgot the figures, but is that the 55-45 flip that the Minister has talked about tonight or established about' 80 or' 81? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, yes, that was the previous negotiations when this was reviewed previously. I'm not sure whether it was'80 or'81 but there was a review done. The member is correct. I believe there was a sharing agreement in place previous to that as well, but I believe it was revised and the 55- 45 was established at that time. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Yes, my understanding was that I think it was a 70-30 arrangement that was in place prior to 1981 where the Motor Vehicle Branch picked up 70 percent of Autopac related costs and Autopac picked up 30 percent. That was deemed to be a taxpayers' subsidy of Autopac operations at the time and protracted negotiations led to a 55-45. The Minister is indicating, if I followed his answer correctly that, in terms of driver licensing and the costs associated through Motor Vehicle Branch of issuing drivers' licences, those costs are paid entirely by the Motor Vehicle Branch, hence the taxpayer.

In the other related 934 area, that of vehicle licensing, that Autopac, M PlC, picks up the entire costs of computer time, staffing, etc., etc., for the registration procedure. Now is that a correct analysis of the new system? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, that's my understanding, that driver licensing insurance system is picked up by DDVL, and the vehicle insurance registration system is picked up by MPIC. MR. D. ORCHARD: Where does the insurance portion of a driver's licence go? Does that end up at M PlC or does that end up in general revenue? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: The insurance portion for the driver's licence goes to MPIC. MR. D. ORCHARD: Presumably, there is no collection fee paid by Autopac for the collection of that insurance portion. This is the gi ve and take that you've established? HON. J. PLOHMAN: That's right. On that system, they do not pay any fee for collection of that revenue. MR. D. ORCHARD: In terms of an approximate split in costs, what would the figur es be now under this new system? Would it be 35-65? What are the Minister's approximate numbers that he must have to give a rough comparison of what we have now compared to what has been in place?

HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, at the present time, I imagine we could compute that, but we haven't worked it out in that context, in terms of a percentage. There's an $850,000 change, net benefit to the division. However, what that would work out in the percentage would have to be computed here and worked out. lt obviously is going to be somewhat less than 55 percent, since there is that net benefit to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Division. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, now the Minister is indicating that, under the new arrangement, there is a net saving to the Department of Highways, the Motor Vehicle Branch or whatever he's calling it now, the DVL HON. J. PLOHMAN: Division of Driver and Vehicle Licensing, DDVL. MR. D. ORCHARD: Presumably, this net benefit, this $850,000 in net savings comes in where, in the Estimates? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, it isn't shown as a net benefit in these Estimates. We have to reconcile this over a couple of years.

There was a certain amount, a larger amount taken out of the Estimates a couple of years ago in the anticipation that the agreement would result in something of a $3.5 million saving. After the negotiations took place, it was found that the benefit agreed upon was really $850,000, as opposed to the 3.5 million. So that's why we see a net change of 2,330,900, which had to be added into the Estimates

Monday, 16 June, 1986 since it had been removed in previous years, and was paid for by Special Warrant back to MPIC once the agreement was worked out last year. MR. D. ORCHARD: The Minister is thoroughly confusing anybody but himself, and he may even be confusing himself on this . The Minister is saying that originally they projected there would be a $3.5 million saving in this new formula that they're negotiating which, presumably, was to have DVL pick up the costs of driver licensing and MPIC pick up the costs of vehicle licensing.

The Minister is indicating that, presumably when they originally struck on this arrangement , there would be $3.5 million in savings, which I think the Minister, if I followed his answer correctly, said they extracted somehow from their previous 55-45 cost-sharing formula that was established in 1980 or 1981.

Now the Minister is indicating that there's an 850,000 net benefit, but somehow we've lost , if my figures are correct, $2. 7 million somewhere in the shuffle, because your savings that you indicate - and unless I misunderstood you, you said your savings were estimated at $3.5 million, and that's what you reflected in Estimates. You only ended up with 850,000 .00. You've got a 2 .33900 payment presumably to Autopac in this years Esti mates . What was your payment then last year that you made by Spec ial Warrant? HON. J. PLOHMAN: The potential savings were in the range of $3 million.

If I said 3.5, it may have been 3.1. In any event, there's an $850,000 after the negotiation benefit to the Department of Highways from what was originally encompassed under the agreement. The total amount under this cost-sharing was removed from the budget two years ago, I believe, in anticipation of these negotiations bearing fruit for the Department of Highways and Transportation, as outlined by the department. However, upon review, it was found that there was not agreement on the department's position on this cost-sharing agreement .

Indeed it was felt by independent parties looking at it that it would be fairer not to turn all of that back to the department, in other words save the full amount, but indeed to work out some kind of a compromise in between . That ended up with the difference of $850,000 to the department. So now we've restored the difference into the budget, that had been removed two years ago. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Then what we have here is the Minister was overexuberant with his 3.5 million, that in reality the 2.33 million - when added to the 850,000 of actual saving - we end up with this projected saving that the Minister thought he might have under this new arrangement. Is that correct? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Well, whether I was overexuberant or not, but that was the projections we had at that time from the department and we put that forward, feeling that it was attainable , that it was realistic; but after the review it turned out that the agreement was obviously substantially less than that, but still to the benefit of the department and therefore a very valuable exercise to have gone through. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now did the Minister indicate that last year they s1ecial warranted this difference to Autopac? 935 HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr.

Chairman , there was a Special Warrant for last year to make up for the net difference and the change in the agreement that had not been finalized last year, so while the discussions were still ongoing and uncertain of the final outcome , the budget remained as it had the previous year with the total amount removed and then once a settlement was reached , MPIC was paid that amount through Special Warrant. MR. D. ORCHARD: What was that amoun t again? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well for last year, the amount was $2,128,200 .00. MR. D. ORCHARD: And now this year you are paying Autopac $2.339 million.

Now the question is, why are you paying them anything if you 've established this arrangement whereby the vehicle licencing costs are picked up by Autopac - and that's going to be their acco unt and no cost recovery from the department - and the department is picking up the driver licencing costs and that's their contribution to the system , no bill back to Autopac, why are you paying them anything? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, I indicated earlier that there's additional components of the agreement, the cost sharing agreement, this was one portion of it, the administrative cost-sharing which was worked out here.

There 's also the vehicle agent commissions and flat fees. That's another portion of the agreement and sharing of costs , so the net cost in terms of the work provided is $2,330,000 this year that DDVL has to pay MPIC under this arrangement - to have the work that is required to be done by the commissioners , by the agents - on behalf of both agencies. MR. D.

ORCHARD: But now the Minister seems to have just now contradicted the answer he gave about 10 minutes ago, where he said , to avoid all of this accounting which took us - I believe he said - hundreds of man hours of work under the old formula; they simply said to Autopac , you look after vehicle licencing; we'll look after driver's licencing and we each pay our own costs and that's our contribution to the system. Formerly I posed the question about who got the insurance premiums collected , presumably by the Motor Vehicle Branch , and it went over to Autopac and that was clean cut.

This isn't what we're talking about here now. Now the Minister is saying that yes , we have this agreement in place , whereby we're picking up costs of driver 's licencing; MPIC is picking up costs of vehicle licencing, but in addition we're paying Autopac $2.33 million and the Minister hasn 't made that clear as to what functions they are perform ing, other than the ones he indicated that you had agreed equally to pay yourself in the Autopac versus Motor Vehicle Branch, as your share of the operation . Now, which answer is the one we're supposed to assume is the new formula? HON . J.

PLOHMAN: Under the administrative cost sharing agreement that we indicated earlier, the MPIC keeps the insurance revenue and DDVL gets the registration revenues; that's what we were talking about earlier.

Monday, 16 June, 1986 In addition to that there is the work that is done by the agents on behalf of both DDVL and MP IC, in co lle cting - well in se ll ing licences, in selling registration, in selling insu rance on behalf of both agencies - and the cost of paying the commissions is divided up between the two. Under the agreement the DDVL has to pay a greater portion of that than MPIC and that is why there's a net difference.

The previous agreement called for a net cost to the government under this agreement of $3,992,000; under this new agreement, with the changes in administrative cost-sharing, it's only $3,142, 000, so there's a net saving to government of $850,000 - or difference there. MR. D. ORCHARD: Whenever he's finished, I'll . HON. J. PLOHMAN: Un der the agreement, Mr.

Chairman, the MPIC pays a 5 percent commission to all of the agents for new registrations and renewals, but they bill the department $2.75 for each transaction that is carried out on behalf of the Department of Driver and Vehicle Licencing; therefore, we have to reimburse M PlC that amount of money which comes to $2,330,000 that I was speaking about. M PlC pays the bills and we pay them back, so under this cost-sharing agreement we have to pay our share of the commi ssions and that comes to the $2,330,000.00. MR. D.

ORCHARD: The Minister, just a little while ago, said that the new agreement followed that driver - I've got to get it right - DVL would cover the driver's licencing and Autopac would cover the vehicle licencing, and that is their contribution towards the system. Now he's saying, in addition to that, the commissions are to paid and administrative fees would be paid from DDL over to Autopac. HON. J. PL.OHMAN: What I stated earlier , Mr.

Chairman, was that the administrative side of it - the administrative cost-sharing which had previously been 55-45 - was now broken down, that each was paying those transactions that applied to their system that was being administered by the respective agency, and we went over that earlier. So in that case the administrative costs are now split according to the system that is being administered by the respective agencies.

In the case of the commissions for transactions carried out by the agents, MPIC pays out 5 percent for every transaction that is undertaken by the agents, and then there is a benefit there obvious ly. The agents are doing work for the DVL as well as the M PlC through registrations, and that is refunded back to the MPIC then and paid back from TDPL. So, Mr. Chairman, that portion, the member must have been aware, if he had gotten into this area in the past, insofar as vehicle agent commissions and flat fees, that has not changed.

That is essentially the same as it was previously under the previous agreement that was in place. MR. D. ORCHARD: What the Minister is saying is that this $2.33 million plus the Special Warrant last year of $2.128 million basically invo lves reimbursement of Autopac of the commissions which wer en't on the table 936 of negotiation with Autopac because commissions are commissioned. What we're talking about is administrative overhead in trying to strike a new sharing arrangement. Is that what the Minister is saying? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: No, the whole thing was on the table at the time, and that's why it was all removed, because we felt that perhaps even the way the commissions were paid should be reviewed. Since there was a different system, a flat fee paid by DDVL and a percentage paid by MPIC, different methods, that this whole matter should be reviewed . That's why it was all on the table, but it ended up that that

section of the agreement was not touched to a great extent and therefore we still have a sharing much the same as it was in the past. But as far as the administrative cost sharing, that's where the major changes took place. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make one comment here, and first of all, I should pose the question, the Special Warrant that you passed last year 2.1 28.2 million, was that primarily the commissions that were under review and then decided not to be touched? Is that what was the major component of that Special Warrant last year? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, as I said earlier, the whole agreement was under review. The amount that was Special Warranted for last year was as a result of the agreement that applies for this year as well as for last year. lt was dif ferent from this year by $202,000.00. In other words, there is an increase of $202,000 this year for increase in commissions paid for new and renewal transactions due to an estimated file growth of 2 percent and an estimated 4 percent increase in the consumer price index.

Increase in flat fees due to 1 percent file growth and an increase in total flat fees due to a 50 cent increase in the rate of payment for certain transactions that were approved on January 23, 1986, to be paid to agents. So the dif ference between this year's agreement, or the effective dollars under the agreement is $202,000 more than last year of additional costs. But the agreement, which applies for this year, is the same as applied for last year retroactively and that's why Special Warrant was paid. MR. D. ORCHARD: But, Mr.

Chairman, that Special Warrant primarily was needed to pay commissions to Autopac agencies. HON. J. PLOHMAN: That's right, because the administrative cost sharing was worked out and applied for last year the same as it does for this year. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, I simply then want to make the comment that this New Democratic Party Government last year, when they presented their Estimates, understated their deficit by that amount going into an election year, and now we find the deficit, of course, was overstated by the $58-$59 million, part of which is right here, something that they knew well in advance of election time, but chose not to tell the people of Manitoba. This is but yet another example of the way they skillfully crafted last year's Estimates

Monday, 16 June, 1986 to try to come in with an under $500 million deficit knowing full well it was going to be higher. We'll find more of those examples as we go through. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue this matter a little further. The Minister indicates that he at one point in time and his colleagues in Cabinet believed there was some $3.1 million worth of savings that could rightfully accrue to the taxpayers of the Province of Manitoba from their relationship with Autopac and their sharing of management with Autopac.

Now, the Minister says to us that there is a $850,000 net benefit now, not the $3.2 million, or whatever it was when he started out. Is the Minister satisfied today that under this new arrangement there is no cross-subsidization by the Motor Vehicle Branch of Autopac operations? HON. J. PLOHMAN: First of all, I just want to correct something that was said by the Member for Pembina.

There was not a change in the statement of projected expenditures under this department last year; the change occurred two years ago, and because the discussions were still up in the air last year when the Bud get was struck, it would have been just a case of guesswork to put in an amount at that time. So it was not a specific contrived effort on the part of government to reduce the expenditures as listed.

If the agreement had been reached prior to last year's Estimates being under taken and completed, obviously, we would have had that figure in there. lt was something that was started the year before that, so two years ago. Insofar as cross-subsi dization, I imagine that under the commissions and flat fees, if one were to get into a lot of in-depth study , there may be diff erent

interpretations but it was my feeling that, with experts from Finance, the comptroller's off ice, from MPIC and from our department having reviewed this for over a number of months, even years, over that period of time, and discussing a number of options and looking at it from every side and every angle, that we had the best possible solution or agreement at that time that both sides could live with and that was fair.

Un less each operates a completely independent system, we would never know for sure but under the shared system, which is done for efficiency purposes, it is felt that neither side is subsidizing the other. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, it's very interesting the Min ister would make that comment after having broached the topic of cost-sharing with MPIC on the basis that they owed $3.2 million, to now come up and say, well, $850,000 is satisfactory , about one-quarter of what he originally said they should be getting from Autopac. Mr.

Chairman, I only mention this from the standpoint that sometimes one should recall history. I was Minister of Highways when we brought in the new 55-45 cost sharing formula in 1980 or 1981 - I forget which set of Estimates. I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that many members in the New Democratic Opposition then decried us for pillaging Autopac, that we were pillaging the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation when, in reality, we knew that all during the Schreyer, the exact opposite occurred, that Autopac had been pillaging the taxpayer, hence able to show the kind of profits.

Now, this Minister has told us tonight of another

chapter in the ongoing saga of Autopac and Motor 937 Vehicles Branch, in that about two years ago he decided, in his wisdom - obviously from advice from his Motor Vehicle Branch people - that there should be an additional $3.2 million saving. They broached some negotiations and ended up with another $850,000 of saving in the Motor Vehicles Branch.

I just wonder what Saul Cherniack would say to this Minister and to this government were he sitting in this House today, with these fees in the Motor Vehicle Branch taking another $850,000 from his beloved Autopac, because he kicked up the wildest fuss on baseless grounds when we changed the formula, back six years ago. Mr. Chairman, all that aside, it's interesting that the Minister is now talking of an $850,000 saving in net benefit to the Motor Vehicle Branch, or to DVL, when we've got an increase in requested budget of $2.6 million.

Where is it that we can see this saving of $850,000 when you're asking for almost $2.6 million, $2.7 million more in this branch? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, the member knows very well, because we just went over that, that this line in the budget, this amount under the cost-sharing agreement was zero last year. If the member looks to the left-hand side of 6.(d), he can see that there's no amount in there. MR. D. ORCHARD: Why didn't you put a Special Warrant ... ? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Because that's not the way the Estim ates are drawn up. There's nothing changed in the process. MR. D.

ORCHARD: That hides things better, doing it that way. HON. J. PLOHMAN: There's no attempt to hide anything. it's just the way these things have been established over the years. There's nothing changed. We have not seen a difference, or a different form in these Estimates, from previous years. The system is such that Special Warrants and reconciliation, in terms of that amount, was normally not put in, and that's the reason for it, under the current system.

So the special warrant was put in last year and this year it's reflected in the Estimates, as it should be, and as it will be in the future if there's no dramatic change in this area in the future. I think the member can see where $2.330 million of it comes from and we've accounted for the remainder of it in discussions and individual questions that were raised by members, his colleagues, in previous questions that they've raised.

As I indicated, the history of this, this past two years ago, was that it was felt that there was a legitimate basis for asking for a review. lt was felt that it could be up to the total amount, but after a review by the experts, and a lot of negotiation, it was felt that this was the fairest agreement that could be reached and mutually acceptable to both sides. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I want the Minister to make sure that he's correct in his statement that

Monday, 16 June, 1986 Special Warrants passed in a fiscal year don't end up in the Estimates. Is the Minister also telling us that, for instance, in the Maintenance budget, if he had to pass a Special Warrant for $5 million for Maintenance, that it wouldn't reflect in the Maintenance line in the previous year? I think the Minister had maybe better reconsider that answer. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, the accounting practice and system that is applied here is consistent with the one that's been in place for as long ss Bill Dyck's been here, so the Member for Pembina can maybe have a talk with him - maybe longer than that - the Director of Administration. There's no change. Special warrants are not shown here. The adjusted vote applies to Salaries. When the actual salaries are settled - the settlement is reached, the vote on the left-hand side is adjusted to reflect the actual cost of salaries in the previous year. But the special warrants for any program changes and so on, are never shown there.

That's my information and, of course, we would have no say in how these are structured. In the final analysis, that's done by Finance and I didn't have any reason to question why they wouldn't have put it in there. MR. D. ORCHARD: Where will that Special Warrant show up? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I guess the Member for Pembina would ask the Minister of Finance that. I don't think it shows up in my Estimates anywhere. I've explained what the amount is. There's nothing hidden. If he wants to ask about Special Warrants, the Minister of Finance is the one to talk to. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, I guess the Minister has difficulty realizing he is the Minister that requested that amount of money in a Special Warrant. HON. J. PLOHMAN: We've explained it. MR. D. ORCHARD: Then explain it further and tell me where it shows up in the Estimates. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I have just told the member what the amount of the Special Warrant was. lt was $2, 128 ,200.00. Even though it isn't showing up here and therefore there's no basis even for the question, I volun teered that information.

The fact is that there was a Special Warrant last year for that amount for the purposes of a cost-sharing agreement and it was paid by Cabinet, Minu te No. 19, November 7, 1985. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well before the election. HON. J. PLOHMAN: So there it is. That was a long time after the Estimates had been drawn up for last year. As I've indicated to the member, the advice I get from the deOartment is that Special Warrants are never shown in the left-hand side to cover last year's Estimates that we see in the Estimates book before us. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, that November 7 Cabinet Minute just simply reinforces the case we've 938 made over the past several months that this government deliberately hid information from the people of Manitoba as to the extent of the deficit, because there was $2.1 million of Special Warrant that wasn't budgeted for and was part of the Highways Department expenditures that would show up in the deficit which, in the Second Quarterly Report tabled December 31, 1985 at about 4:00 in the afternoon, said there was no change. They didn't anticipate any change. I mean, that's just not believable.

The Minister of Highw ays has jus t further reinforced that non-believability. The other thing the Minister is going to have trouble with is telling the people of Manitoba, when they look in this Estimate book and they look at last year's expenditures of jus t under 10 million and they look at this year's expenditures of over 12 .5 million, he's telling us that we've got an $850,000 saving. That simply, when you read these Estimates is not believable. I don't think the Minister can offer any understandable explanation, because I'm not certain he unde rstands the process himself.

But what I suggest to the Minister of Highways is that, if you'r e claiming an $850,000 saving over the previous system, it should be able to be accounted for within the Estimates process. lt simply does not show up. lt is not reflected in any numbers that we'r e asked to peruse in this Estimates book. The Minister is asking us to blithely accept that there is an $850,000 net saving to the Department of Highways and Transportation out of this new deal that he negotiated and struck with Autopac.

Well you know, the Min ister un der ord inary circu mstances might be able to sell that, but recent events in the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation make people in the Opposition want to ask more questions and ask for more detail and explanation and justification of this alleged $850,000 saving, which looks like a $2.5 million increased request for expenditures this year. This is not adequately explained. The events of Friday make us demand more answers from this Minister, and a more detailed explanation than simply saying Special Warrants aren't accounted for.

Then he can't tell us where the Special Warrant is and why it isn't in the reconciliation statements. MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I could suggest to the member, it's my understanding - and the Minister might correct me - that this is not under the jurisdiction of the Minister. The format of the Estimates is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Finance, and I would think the member's questions might be better asked when dealing with the Finance Estimates as to the format of the Estimates. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I accept your answer with the difficu lty, and you have it too.

The Minister told us tonight there's an $850,000 saving from what to what? Because he's now asking for 2.33 million more dollars that wasn't in last year's budget. How does he prove to us that this $850,000 saving exists? If it isn't in the Estimates Book, how else can he do it for us? Can he table a piece of document which shows last year's costs, this year's costs, and an $850,000 saving? If he can do that, we'd be satisfied, but the way these Estimates are set up and the answers we've got from

Monday, 16 June, 1986 the Minister, we don't know whether we've got an $850,000 saving as the Minister indicates . Mr. Chairman, we're here to make sure that dollars are spent properly , and I can't see a $2.5 million increase in appropriation or Resolution No. 95 ending up in an $850 ,000 savings with the explanation the Minister's given us tonight. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, it's the same way the Federal Government says it's increasing transfer payment, when it's really reducing them. Mr. Chairman , I have . .. MR. D.

ORCHARD: If you want to get into that kind of an argument tonight, we'll do it, and I'm sure the Chairman will rule me out of order as he should rule you out of order. HON. J. PLOHMAN: You are out of order right now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, if I can just make . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please .

If I can just make a suggestion to the honourabl e member, I think what the honourable member , if I am correct in hearing what he's saying , is talking about the formatting of the Estimates in meting out certain items to show the net receipts or the net deficit , which is a matter of formatting done by the Department of Finance . I would think his questions would probably be relevant under the Finance Estimates in determining the format of the Estimates . The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, that might be fine, except in the Minister of Finance' Estimates they say, well you should have asked those in the Minister of Highways' Department Estimates. You haven't been here before . I have, and this government skates around those kinds of issues . MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. It is my understanding that , under the Minister 's Salary, questions of this nature can be asked as to the matter of format and design of the Estimates . Now I may be incorrect , but it is my understanding that has been done and is done . HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, whether it be Public Accounts or whether it be the Finance Department or wherever, there are opportunities for the member to ask about the Special Warrants, or else in question period . But in this case, we've explained why there is an additional amount shown in this appropriation for the cost -sharing agreement. We explained that two years ago, the cost-sharing agreement dollars were taken out of the budget and there was a reduction of some $3 million in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Division.

Since that time, negotiations have been undertaken, exhaustive negotiations, discussions between both agenc ies with an independent member from the Department of Finance . After a number of reports and recommendations and alternatives being considered , they decided to recommend to Cabinet the final results 939 that we see here. The decision was made that required that DDVL or the Motor Vehicle Branch continue to pay under this cost-sharing agreement a certain amount to MPIC.

So there was an amount restored equal to that decision, which is $850,000 less than it would have been had there been no review of that decision. Had we carried on in our merry way two years ago and included the total amount for the cost-sharing agreement in our Estimates and then carried it on last year, carried it on to this year, the diff erence would have been $850,000 .00. The member can go back to the Estimates of a couple of years ago . He'll find that there was a reduction in this

section . He will find that we also had a discussion on it at that time in some detail , and we again perhaps had a bit of a discussion last year, although there was no change in the Estimates. Therefore , we may not have , because the member may not have picked it up. Then this year, now that there's a difference again , he is once again questioning this area, but we've explained clearly, there was a Special Warrant, how much it was, what it was for. So there's no problem getting answers on that, and he knows quite clearly why there was a Special Warrant. I don't find it difficult to explain.

There 's $850, 000 lower costs here to the taxpayers that is now being picked up by MPIC . He may find it difficult to comprehend or to explain , but I'm not worried about that problem that he's identified for me. MR. D. ORCHARD: Do you think the Minister could, since he's so able to readily explain this, come to this committee tomorrow with a chart of what the Motor Vehicle Branch expenditures would have been under the 55-45 and what they are now, so that we can identify in that , by comparing the old system and the new system, this $850,000 alleged saving the Minister's got?

After all, he did say he understands it completely. That should be no problem for him to do tomorrow. Would he undertake to do that for us? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I've already provided that information to the member here . . . MR. D. ORCHARD: No you haven't. HON. J. PLOHMAN: ... where the $750 ,000 saving came and where the additional $100,000, and I can provide the member with a

summary sheet of the financial implica tio ns of the changes. I don't know if we have a clean sheet here - I'll see if we do - that isn' t marked up. Both of ours have been marked, here's one . Table it and send it down to the Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman , this sheet that he's sending down here, does it show the departmental budget , what it would have been under the old formula? HON. J. PLOHMAN: It shows the amount that would have been included under the previous agreement. I don't know why, whoever got that , walked out with it. That was the sheet I wanted the Member for Pembina to have.

I'm told that it has to be given to everybody or something like that , so in any event, it does have

- Monday, 16 June, 1986 the previous agreement and the revised agreement and the difference identified. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I'd want the Minister to correct me if my understanding is wrong.

I don't think that the word "net savings" - because I think the Minister explained that it was for the adminis tration on ly, and then the savings - I unde rstand it and this is where I want the Minister to correct me if I'm wrong - that the savings, it was a saving of what it would have been without a change in agreement, not necessarily a saving. lt would have been $800,000 more and I say that the Member for Pembina is certainly entitled to an explanation but I think he'd have to accept that this should be asked of the Minister of Finance.

I don't agree, at any time, there were games played last year when we said that it would be answered and there's a record anyway tonight, and we'r e all witnesses, but you can ask that . . . MR. D. ORCHARD: The record after the election? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, just wait till you get the Special Warrant - it doesn't show in this department. MR. D. ORCHARD: That's what I mean. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, get that from the Minister of Finance, he'll give it to you. MR. D. ORCHARD: We tried to and he said there was no change. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, the Minister of Health is absolutely right; that the saving is, in fact, a reduction in the costs that the Motor Vehicle Branch has to pay to MPIC, from what they would have had to pay under the previous formula that was negotiated when the Member for Pembina was the Minister. He should not be upset or concerned. lt's obviously no reflection on him personally that he didn't achieve the maximum savings at that time.

I'm sure that at another time, perhaps, it will be another saving or change. lt's quite possible that this isn't the final agreement for all times, but it's a better one than there was in place before. MR. CHAIRMAN: The time being 10:00 o'clock, I have two more speakers on the list. Is the Member for Pembina through? What is the wish of the committee? Do you wish to rise at this point? (Agreed) Committee rise. SUPPLY - AGRICULTURE MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Committee please come to order. The Committee of Supply has been considering the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture. We are in Item No. 4.( d)

(1) Soils and Crops Branch: Salaries. The Member for Virden. MR. G. FIND LAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 940 In light of the fact that we now have a fair bit of concern in southern Manitoba with rust coming in from the south, I would like the Minister to comment not only on rust but the potential for sclerotinia, a rust outbreak in wheat, sclerotinia outbreak in rape and also a potential for wheat midge in wheat. What kind of early warning mechanisms are available?

What is the staff of the department doing to ascertain the level of the problem as the next few weeks go by, and what are they planning to do in terms of communicating that information to the farm community when the urgency becomes fairly high? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, there is and will continue to be ungoing monitoring and research into the whole area, of course, of rust and sclerotinia disease in the oil seed and pulse crops dealing with sclerotinia.

There are, of course, chemically controlled methods available for canola and field beans but not on lentils, mustard, peas, in faba beans, sunflo wers and soya beans. Basically, the advice that the department gives in terms of ongoing advice is, of course, rotational considerations to minimize the losses from infected fields, and the advice given generally is at least on a four year rotation.

There continues to be research funding out of the federal-provincial agreement, I believe, and ongoing basic research conduc ted by Agriculture Canada in the development of resistant varieties, especially in terms of wheat plants and other crops. Leaf rust was first detected just recently through the Morden Research Centre here in Morden. Based on last year's crop intentions on wheat, specifically, and the last

article I read that Katepwa wheat and Neepawa wheat accounted for more than 40 percent of last year's crop in the Province of Manitoba and, in fact, could have been, had the rust situation been very severe last year, could have affected jus t about half of our wheat production. This year it's estimated that about 1. 5 million acres of Katepwa and at least .5 acres of Neepawa have been planted this year in our own province and a high percentage of it was planted, of course, after May 20. There are probably about an estimate of between 25,000 and 50,000 acres of winter wheat planted in our province as well.

Although fungicides could be used to protect these crops, there are several factors which will limit the use of fung icides on wheat in Manitoba in 19 86. For example, Bayleton and Dithane M45 were only registered for wheat in 1986. Most farmers have not had any previous experience with control of rust on wheat by fungicide. Demonstration files are being conduc ted by Chem-Agro, Rohm and Haas, and Manitoba Agriculture this year. So we are doing some testing as well. The availability of the fungicides in our province is limited.

Licensing authority of Agriculture Canada has stipulated that Dithane M45 registration, a limit of 100,000 kilograms of product that can be sold in all of Western Canada and this is only enough to treat 50,000 acres. The availability of Bayleton is also limited. The cost of a double application of Dithane M45 is $10

Monday, 16 June, 1986 per acre for the cost of the fungicide and the cost of Bayleton at $16 per acre for a single application. Additional supplies of Dithane could be made available for use on wheat in Manitoba but this would require authorization to the company by Ag Canada , and the Ag Canada Pesticide Director in Ottawa, Dr. Wayne Ormrod, should be informed of the rust situation in Man itoba and a request should be made that Rohm and Haas be allowed to market more fungicide in Manitoba if substantial spraying is required. We are prepared to do that .

We are monitoring if the infestation exceeds, or at least appears to hit an amount that would cause our staff concern, and we would be prepared to move on that fairly quickly with Ag Canada but it's basically a monitoring situation . I would assume humidity and moisture levels wou ld play a

part in terms of how quick and how extensive the development of the spores occur in terms of having the right climatic conditions for rust . We will continue to monitor that and do the testing that we've undertaken now. MR. G. FINDLAY: I thank the Minister for that information. Last year we went through, and the year before, in terms of Sclerotinia, there was a fair bit of scare in the month of June and then all of a sudden it turned dry in July and because of the dryness, the low humidity, the scare , at least in my area , it wasn't as severe as originally thought.

I hear we're entering a year with both Sclerotinia rust and , if you appreciate the farmer's point of view, the cost of application of these chemicals is high. The ·limitation there on Dithane indicates to a farm er that if he has any thought of doing it, he'd better rush out and buy it, so he has it on hand . You can appreciate the decision to do it is difficult because of cost and has to be, in most cases, flown on. You mention that there's monitoring going on by, I presume, the Manitoba Department of Agriculture .

I would like to know for further assurance how much monitoring is going on, how widespread is the monitoring going on, how soon can they detect an infestation, or a level of infestation that warrants economic considerations for control; you know, the relationship between Ag-Canada and the Manitoba Department of Agriculture. Are we putting extra staff into it because there is an apparent emergency developing , or is this just the traditional degree of monitoring? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, there are no additional staff that we're putting on, but there is very close cooperation between Ag-Canada, our plant pathology people and our field staff in terms of the monitoring . We are doing some work internally as well to try and determine some further guidelines in terms of infestation as to what would be the appropriate time in terms of basically, economics.

This would be the time to say, based on this kind of infestation, if you are going to spray these are the potential losses you migh t have and this might be your gain if you do spray ; and in terms of your own analysis can determine as to when is the most optimum time for spraying but also the most economic time for spraying if, in fact, you're considering spraying, based on the infestation that you have.

So some of that work is going on. 941 But t here continues to be, as there has been historically, a very close relationship between Morden, between the universities, between our own plant pathology people and our field staff in this whole area and it's really a team effort in terms of sharing of information and doing the monitor ing. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(d)(1)-the Member for River Heights . MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman .

I would like to ask the Minister this evening, why, with all of the literature that we have seen recently, books and studies, such as soils-at-risk the Senate did, why this particular Budget is in fact down? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, this portion of the Budget primarily covers the salaries and expenditures of our professional staff . It does not cover the thrust within our department, which is a major thrust in the whole area of soil and water conservation, which we are funding through the Agri-Food Agreement.

That's where the major amount of funding, in terms of crop .. . yes, the whole area of crop production , soil and water management, those areas of . . . If the member notes on Resolution No. 7 - you will note that the Agri-Food Agreement is moving from $640,000 to $1 ,096,000 in terms of the work there, as well, the water-related projects that are part and parcel of this agreement are, of course , in the Natural Resources budget which is part of the total $38,000,000 agreement. I might add, Mr.

Chairman, that this agreement is actually more than double the previous five-year agreement that just expired or is in the process of winding down and this one is just in the process of starting up over the next five years. We're just beginning into the, in fact , there is probably maybe 50 or 60. We'll be getting to that, the Honourable Member would like to have an overview. When we get to this whole area , I'll be able to provide the Member a whole list of all the various projects that we are funding in this whole area of crop rotation, crop development, research .

Primarily a major portion of the funding in the whole area of demonstrations and practical research is on farm demonstrations . That focus we've continued from the previous agreement and we're highlighting it in this agreement as well. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Well I know this is going to carry over into 2. Mr. Chairman , but surely that those salaries are used by individuals who have those other expenditures , which I assumed were in soil conservation projects. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, in the figures that we have here, we are really talking about the entire Soils and Crops Branch of which soil conservation in the specifics is but one activity . The whole area of Soils and Crops Branch deals with soil, weeds, weed control, soil testing, soil management, land planning, forage production , horticulture, plant phytology; those are some of the areas that are part and parcel to this entire branch. Soil conservation is a major component of the branch but is not the only component of the Branch.

Monday, 16 June, 1986 MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Since we don't have the detailed estimate, can the Minister assure me that, in fact , soil conservation is going to get add itional funding over what it had last year? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman , I did at the outset of these Estimates and this

section provide the breakdown of staff and staff complement. Well it was in the record. I read it into the record. That Hansard is out. I wasn't sure when we started , because I didn 't have it marked off but , when I looked at the sheet this evening. I believe I did read the actual breakdown of staff. I can just repeat it for the Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party here: 54 .47 staff years in the whole branch, six of whom are branch administration . The remaining staff would be technical people and professional people in the various areas that I have generally outlined .

The rest of that information on actual numbers, I gave last week when we were in these Estimates . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Portage . MR. E. CONNERY: Last time we met , Mr. Chairman, the Minister assured us that he would give us a breakdown of what was in the various sectors of the Estimates. Does he have them tonight? He promise d this afternoon that he would have them for this evening . HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, okay, I guess it's a matter of timing in terms of the overview . I was going to give the member my basic comments on the next section, which is Farm and Rural Development.

I think, when we went into this whole area, I should have actually given members, at the same time as I was reading my introductory remarks, a copy. Now if you're asking, saying, look, give us now a copy of Farm and Rural Development Division, we will have them before the end of the evening. Likely, we may come there, and I will in advance give members a copy of those introductory remarks to each

section . I won't give them, unless honourable members want the whole area. I don 't have all of them. Our Farm and Rural Division are ready, and we should be able to have them for you and g ive them to you . I'm assuming that's really what the honourable member was asking, to give you enough lead time in terms of the next

section so that you'd know basically what I'm going to be introducing. Am I assuming it accurately? MR. E. CONNERY: Well yes, and also a breakdown of the staff in the various departments under the Soils and Crops. But to properly question the Minister on the Estimates in these things, it would be nice to have them ahead of time. Otherwise , there will be sections that we might overlook and not reme mber. That way, we would be doing a more thorough job. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, in this sections of the whole - as we come, branch by branch, in the Soils and Crops, last week when we began, I gave the actual detailed estimate of every staff position in that branch. It's on record . If the member would check last week's Hansard when last we met, that was Thursday 942 night - I believe it was Thursday night. If he wants, I will go through it again .

I will provide it, just so there 's no misunderstanding. - (Interjection ) - Branch administration, 6; horticulture management , 1; horticulture investigations, 5.20; plant pathology - 4; northern horticulture - 1.26; cereal crops - 2; special crops 3.19- ; forage production investigation s - 2.19; soi l and water manageme nt - 1; soil fer tility - 1; soil management conservation - 4; soil testin g lab administration - 1; irrigation - 1 staff person; wheat control investigations - 3.39; land utilization - 1; soil surveys - 15.28; land planning and development stud ies - 1 .

It should be a total of 54.47 staff persons for the requested budget of $3,004 ,900.00. MR. E. CONNERY: We can pass the

(1) I guess, Len. You're happy with (1) now, the salaries? MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(dX1)-pass . 4.(dX2) - the Member for Portage . MR. E. CONNERY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman . Under the new crop production - I don't know if this comes under Soils and Crops - the new crop production, Agro-Man, and I'm going throu gh your book of progams and policies - it is the only thing that we've got to have a look at - it says the Specialist New Crops Agricultural Extension Centre , which will be Brandon, would that come unde r this sector? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman , the Brandon Research Station is federal.

The Extension Centre of the Agricultural Extension Centre that we have in Brandon would be the next section. Well, it would be in this same

section (

e) under Technical Servic es, we would have any questions there . We can go at it anytime, it's in this section, if you have any questions about the Ag Extension Centre . MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(dX2) - the Member for Portage . MR. E. CONNERY: I guess being a farmer, I'm a little embarras sed not to know what lupins, I thought was always a flower, and laythru s are under your new crop production . They're in with soya beans and lentils. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(dX2) - pass? MR. E. CONNERY: I asked a question if you knew what they were; I'd like to know. Do you know what lupins and laythrus are? MR.

CHAIRMAN: The M inist er is getting the information . HON. B. URUSKI: Lupins, Mr. Chairman , is a pulse crop which does resemble, I am advised, lentils . And I am advised; I want to share my lack of knowledge in this . The Honourable Member for Portage has me on this one, I have to say quite clearly. Neighbours of mine have grown lentils, and I'm well aware of those pulse crops, and I've heard lupins - and what's the other one? - laythrus. Maybe somebody up there can

Monday, 16 June, 1986 Mr. Chairman, it is a crop, I am told, a pulse crop that may have some application in drought prone areas, and Ag Canada is doing some research to see whether or not there can be some application in drier areas of the province in terms of production. But it is a pulse crop. MR. CHA IRMAN: The Member for Portage. MR. E. CONNERY: Could the Minister give me the status of the Elite potato seed farm at Portage as to the acres you are producing now and what sort of a contract have the Keystone Growers got with the Department of Agriculture? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, I'd better correct the word that I used. lt is not a pulse crop. I'm sorry that I may have led the honourable member astray, but testing is going on. In terms of the elite seed operation near Portage, the new Agri-Food contract follows very closely on the previous Agro-Man Agreement in terms of conducting the ongoing operations of the elite plant. I'm going from memory for the honourable member, I believe there was a production capacity there of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 500 acres, was the elite seed plant operation. I don't have the statistics at hand, we're trying to look them up.

But, if memory serves me, because I toured the operation and visited some of the sites there, I think twice I was there, but once there was an extensive tour that I participated in, I believe, it's about 500 acres. MR. E. CONNERY: What is the status of the contract? What is the agreement that you have, I think it's with the Keystone Potato Growers? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the project name, and I'll provide the information, is Disease-free Potato Production; duration is 4.5 years; total funding is half a-million dollars provincial at the Espo Farm.

Provision of disease tested stock of seed potatoes forms the base for, of course, Manitoba seed and commercial processing potato industries, and that's the extent. Of course, the target is to continue to ope rate in cooperation with the Seed Potato Growers Association of Manitoba. The seed potato increased facilities at Espo Farms so that supplies of seed materials suf ficient to fulf ill de mand for com mercial varieties and introductions of new and promising cultivars are made on a timely basis as required by the industry.

As well, research techniques of production, disease identification and monitoring are updated regul arly, and the sponsoring group, as the member pointed out, is the Seed Potato Growers Association of Manitoba. The present president is Allan Funk from Plum Coulee. MR. E. CONNERY: You said there was 4.5 years remaining on the agreement? HON. B. URUSKI: We basically signed the agreement at the beginning of 1986, or late fall, or early winter of 19 85, I can't recall which. I know I participated at a meeting - I'm advised there are four seasons left to go in that agreement. 943 MR. E.

CONNERV: I think that's a very worthwh ile program. Mr. Minister, as you know, in the last couple or three years, there have been some tragic losses to ring rot in some of our commercial seed producers and there has been tremendous loss. So, I hope, when this agreement runs out, that we will analyse it and not be too quick to leave it. Under the greenhouse production - and I'm going by your book here, so if you're wondering if I'm jumping HON. B. URUSKI: Which book are you using, if I may ask? MR. E. CON NER Y: Yes, it's the Department of Agriculture, Policies and Programs. HON. B. URUSKI: Okay. MR. E.

CONNERV: That's the best that we have until you give us tha t other material. Any new develo pments in the greenhouse production? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, in terms of essential work that is going in the greenhouse crop production area, programs, activities are directed to achieving greater efficiencies in the area of labour and energy costs limiting local production and, of course, trying to strive for greater communication and cooperation between growers.

I think there is a newly established Greenhouse Growers Association in the province so that there is better attempt to coordinate information and improve commun ications between department staff on various issues.

There have been, of course, some issues, and the honourable member may know, that have been raised which are beyond the purview of the province and those deal with the importation of certain ornamental trees and flowers and the seeming, at least allegation, that customs are not able to provi de the necessary inspections on certain groups, primarily the large retailers, the Woolcos and those who bring in truckload lots, and there has been some dispute between the growers and Ag Canada in this whole area. We've attempted to see whether or not some better monitoring can occur in terms of our

section so that there is no one, in terms of the inspection process, is really being treated one way versus another, but I know that is an issue that is currently being debated by the Greenhouse Association, at least was this spring when products were coming over primarily from the United States. MR. E.

CONNERY: The Minister probably knows the importation of plants, if they're not in a soil base, there's not near the problems if they're produced in a vermiculite, and so forth, base that has no danger of having noxious weeds and disease in them, but there are an awful lot of plants coming in from the south, primarily Florida. Has the department looked at trying to accommodate this market by encouraging local production? HON. B. URUSKI: There is no doub t that our horticultural specialist, Jim Petrie, especially that I know

- Monday, 16 June, 1986 of in the last number of years, the whole area of U pick strawberries, as an example, and the development of that indus try, really has in fact started taking off in the Province of Manitoba. There have been a number of growers established through various locations around the province.

His reputation, I might say, is widely accepted, not only widely accepted, but acclaimed by many of the growers as being, not only in terms of the communication skills, the public relations, has just done an excellent job for producers around the province and, as much work as we can do in promotion of the fostering of these small growth ind ustries which eventually grow it's, I believe, first starting off small and getting the technical expertise and information on some of the problem areas and management techniques before one goes into these areas in a big way.

I think our staff, I believe, have done an excellent job in this area of promotion. But I'm sure that the honourable member and many others may have ideas and say more can be done, and I would not dispute that in terms of the specialized industries, but we certainly should be doing more in this area because those are the kinds of industries that really diversify the economy of the province and do provide beginnings of Manitoba home grown indu stries which really is the basis of our agriculture in the province. MR. E. CONNERY: I think, specifically, I was thinking, Mr.

Minister, in the area of broccoli, celery, tomato plants coming in from the south, where they are brought in, and has there been any work to develop greenhouse production along these lines? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, a number of years ago, and I say this because a number of greenhouse operations were set up and, in fact, one right close to where I live, of the production of hothouse tomatoes and, if I'm not mistaken, cucum bers. There was some promotion done.

The economics, in terms of what was coming over the border during what we would call normal off-season work, many of these operations did run into financial difficulties, no doubt about it, knowing our weather conditions. They did experiment with them. The real basic problem, of course, is because of our climate. lt is the cost, the high cost of energy, that limits the extent to which certain of these items and vegetables, I would say vegetables and fruits, that can be produced in our climate.

That's the kind of work that's been jointly - some research and maybe not quite enough - but there's been some fairly extensive research into the whole area of solar energy and using residua l energy in the production of fruits and vegetables, and it's still a question of cost because of our weather conditions, but that's the kind of work that has been ongoing. I believe that over the longer term that in fact this whole industry , if it's to develop to any extent, will be on a small basis and maybe as a sideline to some other operation.

Totally sustained, I believe, will be very difficult because of our climatic conditions and the cost of energy to produce versus what can happen south of the border primarily and be imported into this country. MR. E. CONNERY: I'm quite familiar with the program, and I think a lot of us were quite disturbed with that 944 particular overzealous promotion of the greenhouse industry in the tomato-cucumber area and it got an awful lot of people into trouble.

To the Minister, it's not this finished product, it's the seedling transplants that are coming in for transplanting in the field that there's a tremendous, you know, it's into the millions of plants that are coming in that there's possibly an opportunity for Manitoba production. These are seedlings, not growing them to . HON. B. URUSKI: I see. MR. E. CONNERY: ... so there's an opportunity, I think, along that area for it. When he mentioned the strawberries, Mr. Minister, I think we want to know, has there been a market analysis done of the acres that are really required in Manitoba? Mr.

Chairman, there's been some concern that there's an encouraging overproduction. I know a year ago there were berries being left in the field because there was excess production. I would like to know if they've done a market analysis or if they're just continually promoting on the basis that promotion is good. Some areas out in the rural area such as Portage, which we consider the strawberry capital of Manitoba, found that there's an increase. The Member for Charleswood will be able to pick now, I see, this sum mer, because he's got rid of his crutch. I would hope, Mr.

Chairman, that the Minister would encourage the staff to do a market analysis before continually promoting because now there is a push to encourage a lot of production around the City of Winnipeg which then precludes people going out into the rural area. lt's been a very good money maker for the rural people outside of Winnipeg. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, in fact, our promotion has centred around building up what I would call the appetite for fresh strawberries and fresh fruits and U pick operations in terms of coordinating the information to the citizenry of the urban centres to say here are the present locations and these are the days, and trying to make sure that there isn't what one would say "call before you go," so to speak, so that there isn't a huge stampede out to the farm when in fact it may be the wrong day of the week in that particular operation. That's where our promotion in terms of the public is concerned.

What we're trying to do in terms of extension work is, of course, you could call it promotion of good management and operations, to impart the technical information and advice to those who are seeking and are prepared to and want to invest in those areas, that we at least can provide them with the best information that there is currently available in terms of both good and the problem areas if one goes into the production of a particular product.

The whole seedling area, and that's one I think we will have to look at - I don't know how many greenhouse producers are in fact in the vegetable producing seedling area, but I know a number of them. In fact, the president of the greenhouse growers, Mr. Schriemer of Schriemer's Greenhouse - I think it's

Monday, 16 June, 1986 on Mcl eod in the northeastern part of the city - is one of those who does, at least in the flower area, sell a lot of seedlings as well as the plants themselves commercially, but does promote the seedling resale because there is, no doubt, a cost factor and there is a knowledge factor in terms of the critical development of the first, what I would say, two, three weeks of the growth. lt does take a particular management and expertise and a cost to growers in terms of saying, all right, I'm prepared to pay a little bit more for the seedlings and do the transplanting into smaller pots or whatever one would call it in terms of - I know there are peat pots, but the trays that they use; I guess that's the word I was trying to get - and grow them from basically the two to three week growth and then until they're ready to be transplanted again into the garden.

I know, for example, my wife, who is an avid greenho user, doesn't have a large greenhouse in terms of our own farm, but does like to experiment and has, over the last number of years, used that whole area of purchasing the first growth and then doing the one term transplant before they're actually put out. I think that's what the honourable member is recommending, and that's something, if we're not doing it, we may want to look at the extent of production.

I would think what would be a good move, quite frankly, is that the vegetable growers, those who are in the key areas of actually doing the commercial growth, should really, because you have an association, really should have a meeting of both groups and say, can we do some coordinating of production within the province of Manitoba to meet those kinds of needs of those growers

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-1-27b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 1st hansardpdf 27b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	52956c51dbab1385892f630f141a4db87fbb2991

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