Manitoba Hansard — 26 May 1980 (Sitting 65B, 31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-65b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 26 May, 1980 Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - AGRICULTURE MR. CHAIRMAN, Morris McGregor (Virden): I call the committee to order. I think it's the desire of the Minister to return to Resolution 8, Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, 3.(b). MR. SAM USKIW (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. When we broke for the supper hour I believe it was indicated that the Minister want�d to, first of all, get back into MACC. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's just what I said. MR. USKIW: I'm sorry. I thought you were passing 5. MR.

CHAIRMAN: No, we're returning to No. 3. The Honourable Minister. HON. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, the member knows that we're more co-operative than that, and what we said we would do before supper, we will do now. MR. CHAIRMAN: You mean the Chairman is as good as his word. 3. Net Interest Cost. It should be (

a) and (

b) I'm sure, but it's not listed that way, so we did pass the Administration, as I understand it. We were hung up on the second item, I think, Net Interest Cost. The Honourable Minister. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, if the member wants to proceed to go over the points on which he'd asked the questions on before, he was concerned, I think about the comprehensive guaranteed program, of the participants, I . can indicate to him at this particular time, one individual was a land lease conversion, and the other one was a new individual.

As far as the announcement of the program, there was a public press release went out in July of 1978 indicating the different programs, and that comprehensive loan guaranteed program was in that press release, so I think it's a . matter of just indicating to the member again that we've had, as I indicated in both Quebec where there is a program like that, and Alberta where they have been slow to take off. That's basically the area in which the member had asked - and if there are any other items that I missed in answering, then he will certainly ask the question, I'm sure. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, there was a series of questions put to the Minister. One had to do with the applicants under this program. We had also asked for the tabling of files. We also asked the Minister whether or not any member of the board was involved with loan transactions with MACC, all of which the Minister said he would check into and bring back the information on. All we've got so far is the information on these two loans under the comprehensive guaranteed loans program. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I think I indicated that there weren't any members of the board involved in any application for loans under the program.

I have no more to report on that. I thought I had indicated that if there had been someone, then I would report, but the reports are that there haven't been any members of the board who have been involved in loans, in the application for loans and approval of loans. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is very selective with his words. My question was whether any of the present board members are in any way involved with respect to loan arrangements for their private operations with MACC. The Minister happens to choose very selective wording that there aren't any involved in application for loans.

I simply want to know whether any of the present board members have a loan with MACC? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, not that have been approved since they have been board directors. In fact, I don't know whether they have a loan prior to that, but I would say, no to that answer, that they don't have any loans. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3. - the Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR . USKIW: Can the Minister assure this Committee that no member of the board is in any way involved with a loan from MACC? MR. DOWNEY: No, I can't.

I think last year there was some indication, when .we went through Estimates, that in some way one member had, but had no

part in any land that was sold or something, but I can't say that . . . MR. USK IW: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister is misreading me. I am referring to members of the board of MACC, not members of the Assembly. I want to know whether any Board member of MACC has a loan of any description with MACC at the present time? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, one has, and it was prior to him becoming a board member of MACC. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, could the Minister allow for his Committee to examine that particular file, since it is obvious that if a board member - first of all, I would ask the Minister whether he could indicate whether it is a member or whether it is the Chairman of the board? MR. DOWNEY: member. Mr. Chairman, it is a board MR. USKIW: Is the Minister saying that it is not the Chairman of the board? 3999

Monday, 26 May, 1980 MR. DOWNEY: I am saying that it is not the Chairman of the board. MR. USK IW: Mr. Chairman, since we do have a situation where a board member has an ongoing loan with MACC, then it seems to me that it would be very reasonable on the part of the government to allow the Committee access to that particular file in order to satisfy all members that there is no conflict of interest situation at any time arising out of the continuation of that loan or any addendums to it or whatever.

The Minister knows that once you enter into an agreement that there can be numerous addendums added on at any time after the initial loan is taken. Therefore the question of conflict does come into play, and all we want to do is to satisfy ourselves that there has been no conflict of interest exercised with respect to any loan held by a member of MACC, a loan from MACC. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the loan which I am referring to was made during a time when the Member for Lac du Bonnet was the Minister. I have no indication that there were any changes or anything on the board. In fact, I am sure that there wasn't.

I would further review it if the members want it reviewed and under my Salary, be prepared to deal with it, but I can assure him that the loan was put in place when he was the government, when his Board of Directors were in place, so there couldn't be any conflict of interest with the board member. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, as long as there is a situation where a sitting member of the board has private dealings with the corporation over which he is a board member, then there is always a possibility of a conflict of interest.

Now, it may not occur, but I think the only way to determine whether it has occurred or hasn't occurred is to make that information available to the committee. There is no way this committee would know whether or not there was a conflict of interest, but we know that that arrangement could raise the question of a conflict of interest, whether it occurs or not. There are ways of dealing with that problem. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, I think I have clearly stated, and have no reason to state anything differently, that there was a loan taken out by a member who is now a member of the Board of Directors, who took it out under the Lac du Bonnet, when he was Minister. It's in the hands of the administrators as far as the operation of the loans are concerned and there have been no decisions made by the board, as far as I am concerned, and records . . . since that loan was taken out under his administration. We can review the file but I think it is somewhat . . . As far as I am concerned, I am satisfied that there isn't any conflict. MR.

USKIW: Let me then put it another way. Can the Minister assure the committee that any board member does not have the facility of voting for an item wherein they themselves personally are involved, that is, if they have a loan transaction from the Corporation, can the Minister assure us that there is no undue influence exercised with respect to such a transaction. MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can ... MR. USKIW: That is sufficient, if he can assure us of that. MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can assure the members of that. MR. USKIW: That's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.-pass; (b)-pass.

Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding 1,948,600 for the Agriculture, Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation-pass. We will go back to where we left back this afternoon, Resolution 10, at the top of Page 9. (cX1)-pass - the Member for St. George. MR. BILLY URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister indicate the extent of the program, or it is strictly a continuation. Are there any changes in the program that he is anticipating in this coming year? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, the 4-H Program, I might add, is one of the areas of rural youth development that we are continuing to support in a very aggressive way. It is one of the area that we, as a government, can support some of the youth and I would just like to comment and congratulate the voluntary leaders throughout Manitoba who play a big

part in the 4-H movement. There is a lot of volunteer time, a lot of effort put into the 4-H movement that the people are to be commended for. We have directed our staff to assist all 4-H members when it comes to all programs. I think it is youth development. I refer to a sign that I saw on a float that was put on by the 4-H young people in Dauphin, that put it very well, Young 4-H'rs are Future Farmers.

I think they are not only future farmers, but they are future citizens of Manitoba and Canada, a movement which I am very pleased and proud to support as a Minister, and I am sure my colleagues as we see them sitting here representing a lot of rural Manitoba are very supportive of that particular program. One new area, it is not really new as far as the 4-H movement is concerned, and this is self-initiated by the 4-H members who are graduating, and that is called the 4-H Ambassador Program.

It is those people who graduate out of 4-H who feel they still have quite a bit to offer and it is a program they have developed to further encourage long-term continuation of what they have learned in 4-H. It is motivated by the 4-H members who have participated in the 4-H movement and I think that we can look forward to future leaders coming from the 4-H movement. They learn public speaking, they learn management practices in agriculture and just to be good citizens, and I am very proud indeed, as the Minister of Agriculture, to show our support throughout all Manitoba.

We also have 4-H in the northern part at Thompson, Manitoba, where there are other than farm people involved. It is a good all around support program for youth development. MR. UR USKI: I thank the Minister for his comments. I certainly don't think that there are any 4000

Monday, 26 May, 1980 criticisms at all in terms of the support of the program from this side. I would like the Minister to indicate to members of this Committee whether he has the numbers of clubs that are presently active in the province and specifically the activities in northern Manitoba, where the Minister indicates those are community groups not directly associated with agriculture, but which doesn't preclude people from joining 4-H in terms of other community activities of public speaking, crafts and so on, Mr. Chairman. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, at present there are 325 clubs in the province.

It is indicated to me that there are 300 and some members in northern Manitoba, that many members, which I think are important. I think it's a matter of identifying whoever is involved in 4-H, identifying what all can come out of the 4-H program, and I think it's a matter of telling people as many times, and to the fullest extent, what all can be accomplished or available.

There's interprovincial trips sponsored, there is certainly project development that can further the skills of people, whether it's in handicraft, whether it's in unrelated agricultural events, there's still the structure that's there to provide people with person improvement. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, certainly no one can disagree with the character building and the building of individualism in terms of the 4-H.

While there may be, in some communities, a bit of a competition between the cubs and scouts and the 4-H movement where there may be an overlapping of some of the activities, nevertheless, the rural 4-H would be the counterpart of the urban cubs and scouts program, so there's certainly no quarrel at all. Has there been a movement for the formation of new clubs, as compared to previous years? Has there been a growth in the number of clubs within the province or the expansion in terms of membership to 4-H clubs? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, I can indicate to members of the committee that the numbers of clubs over the last, probably four years, have remained fairly static. There is a small reduction, but very small, in the neighbourhood of 325. It was 336, so it's basically fairly static over the last three-year period. There are some indications when he talks of new clubs, I think the staff just indicated to me that we have seen interest in a couple of swine clubs that haven't been in place for some time, so there are different areas that showed renewed interest. MR.

URUSKI: Would the Minister have some indication of memberships within the 4-H groups? While the number of clubs might vary, fluctuate to some degree, has the individual membership remained constant? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, again, there has been a slight reduction in numbers of participants, but again, remaining fairly static along with the numbers of clubs in place. For example, there are 6,373 members at this particular point. Last year there were some 349 more, it was reduced from the year before by 127, so basically, in relationship to the number of clubs, it has dropped. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, it would take the general trend in terms of rural depopulation that is going on and the numbers of pupils within school districts, so there would have to be an impact there as well in terms of the numbers. Could the Minister indicate the extent that the department is involved in assisting with the publications of, I think there's a newsletter that's either quarterly or monthly that comes out, and to what extent is the department involved? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I think it's 4-H Contact is the letter the member is referring to, and it is paid for by the department. MR.

URUSKI: Could the Minister Indicate the annual cost of that publication? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, it will be in the Other Expenses in the next item, if we could pass on to that. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(c)(1) - the Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENR Y J. EINARSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the Minister could give us an indication of the number of .leaders, the 4-H club leaders in the province of Manitoba, that have served anywhere from five to 25, 30 years, in the province of Manitoba? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, I haven't got those numbers with me, but I can get them for the members of the committee and will provide them at a later date, if that's okay. Plus, we do recognize those people by passing out a certain certificate from the Minister of Agriculture, recognizing their long term contribution. MR. EINARSON: Mr.

Chairman, I would just like to put it for the record, not only to the young boys and girls who have been participants and become members of the 4-H clubs that have been discussed in the past few minutes, but I would like to pay tribute to the many many men and women across the province of Manitoba who have given of their time and effort as club leaders for 4-H clubs, which in my view, Mr.

Chairman, are the backbone of the agricultural industry in Manitoba, and in other forms, and I'm sure that there are also clubs such as sewing clubs and what have you, in the cities that are also performing a very worthwhile service. I would just like to make, Mr.

Chairman, a comment in this regard, and the Minister could probably give us those numbers who have been the volunteer people who have given of their time and services over the many years to assist our young boys and girls, which I think is a very valuable organization in making the citizens, both in the agricultural field, and also, probably in many areas in our urban communities. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5. (c)(1)- pass; 5. (c)(2) - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: The Minister was to provide us with the cost of the printing of the bulletin . 4001

Monday, 26 May, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member will excuse me, we will pass ... the Honourable Minister. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the approximate estimate is 3,000 for that publication. MR. URUSKI: Annual cost. MR. DOWNEY: That's correct. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, under what

section would the provincial wheat conference leadership and development of careers in agriculture, where would questions under that be? MR. DOWNEY: We've passed that, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(c)(2)-pass; 5.(d)(1)-pass the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister give us a rundown on this year's program. There seems to be a slight reduction. Has there been shifting of staff in this area? A re-allocation of staff roles in the home economics section? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, there is no reduction in this appropriation. Oh, I'm sorry ... MR.

URUSKI: There is, a 600 reduction. Is it a re allocation, or what is it? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the reduction is due to vacant positions that have been filled. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5. (d)(1)-pass; 5. (d)(2)- pass; 5.(e)(1) - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the item District Office Administration deals with the salaries of all the regional offices, is that correct? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I had a couple of questions that wanted to raise, if I could, if that deals with the regional offices.

Is the Min ister contemplating contact with the individual producers across the province to do an on-farm survey of feed supplies to be able to get an adequate picture, and if he hasn't, can I suggest that be undertaken. I think the Minis ter realizes and has spoken that there is a serious feed shortage problem, whether one method might be to make on-farm contact, either personal, telephone, by letter, to notify the regional offices just to do a survey as to the hay supply, as to the pasture conditions.

Because I know the situation in many areas is critical, yet it seems that farmers are likely hanging on until the last momement, and I just believe that the roof may fall in around the Minster in terms of the gravity of the situation should we not have rain. Then we will be scrambling trying to pick up feed, which we likely should be corraling now and yet we don't seem to have a real up-to-the-minute picture of the situation. The Minister says he has set up an office in Brandon and there have been some calls, but yet, Mr.

Chairman, I don't believe that the extent of the situation is known by the Min ister or by the department. I can only say that, in all seriousness, we know, for instance, that the province of Saskatchewan in terms of their bulk purchasing of pellets of one sort or another is twenty times the amount that the Minister has told us - that the province of Manitoba has purchased 1,000 tons while the province of Saskatchewan has bought 20,000 tons. Is there a difference of opinion on the magnitude of the seriousness of the problem or is it that we are still not sure of the gravity of the situation?

Those kinds of things I would urge the Minister to set up, if he hasn't, although he has set up the offices, to do that on-farm survey and contact the farmers just to get a first hand situation as to the extent of the problem of feed supplies, the problem of pastures, because we know there are some, for example, alfalfa fields don't look too bad, the alfalfa and the clover fields seem to be holding. If we had some rain they would likely shoot up. On the other hand you have meadow fescue and brome grass is going to seed in a very sparse way, just like native hay stands.

There is that kind of problem and the Minister really hasn't said today that he has the situation in hand. I believe he is guessing in terms of knowledge as to how much feed there is, and possibly the Minis ter should be doing more in terms of making sure that there is going to be adequate supplies of pellets, adequate supplies of grain, if worse comes to worse, and of course his people who have gone east, who he told us today have gone to Ontario, are making sure that hay supplies are being purchased.

I believe that if they have gone east they will have to, no doubt, give those producers in eastern Canada a commitment that we will take the hay and that there will be some down payment or whatever the case may be. On the other side of it, to be able to understand the problem better, that maybe he should be buying as much as he can, but he really doesn't know at this time that survey should have been conducted, and if it hasn't been conducted, get it under way and get it going in terms of having direct Department of Agriculture and province of Manitoba contact with the producers. MR.

DOWNEY: The comment I have, Mr. Chairman, is that I do, I believe, understand the gravity of the problem, because we have a large cattle population in the province. We have seen very little rainfall in some of the regions over the last two years and there have been certain limitations to the amount of feed that is produced. In a general way, and I say general, all Ag Reps have asked producers to come forward with feed supplies or those people requiring it.

I guess it is a matter of again suggesting to members - if the member is recommending that a one-on-one phone call type survey take place - I don't know whether we are going to alleviate an indivi dual's problems if he isn't in a position to indicate to us earlier of his difficulties. The other thing is that some people may be somewhat reluctant to give you specifics of what they have on hand, and I think if it is a matter of having a farmer who has got certain supplies or reserves that he wants to keep that his business, I think that is a matter of . . .

The system to date, as far as I am concerned, is working pretty well, ee are having those people who are concerned with their own 4002

Monday, 26 May, 1980 supplies have indicated. Again, I think the time of the whole situation is critical. As we develop, another week or so, we are not going to see an easier situation if it doesn't rain, and if at that particular time there could be some indication that people have feeds that don't need it, or that are in reverse that should be moving, then I think we will be in the position to encourage them to take feed supplies that we have that are available and they maybe should be taking advantage of.

But a one-on-one, again I would hope that the mechanism that is in place now is satisfactory, I am pretty confident that it will be at this stage. I don't want to underestimate the problems that are developing and that is why I suggested earlier the recommendation from the member on taking a one-on-one survey, if we thought we could get a closer reading of the situation, it is worth consideration. But at this point we have requested that farmers come forward to list what they have with us, to indicate where they are at.

I can't stress on them enough that it is a timing situation, and I think the farm community operate of somewhat being involved with it, as I know the members of the Committee are pretty much involved. It is a matter of not getting too large a supply of high cost feed on hand if, in fact, they were to get rain on their own farms. We see some areas last night that got 1/2 inch of rain, that would alleviate some of the problems, or in fact the immediate problems for those individuals. Now that is, I think, the situation the farm community are in.

I don't think that I could be justified in going out and encouraging any amount of individuals to stockpile large supplies at this particular time. We, as a government, I feel have a responsibility to get those supplies identified and to proceed as we are to buying them for distribution, which we are doing. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rock Lake. MR. EINARSON: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the District Office Administration, and we have been discussing the seriousness, and I don't underestimate it, the matter that the Member for Lac du Bonnet, the Member for St.

George, has brought about and I appreciate their comments and their questioning. But, Mr. Chairman, I know the Member for St. George is a turkey producer. I don't know what experience he has insofar as cattle production is concerned and I don't know what dialogue he has had with his constituents who are farmers in the cattle industry. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, and I want to suggest to the committee that this is a serious matter and I fully agree with my worthy opponents from the opposition, I don't want any misunderstanding there. But let me say, Mr. Chairman, that individual farmers are watching the situation.

We don't know whether it is going to rain tonight; we don't know whether we are going to get rain in the next two weeks but I am hoping, Mr. Chairman, that there is some dialogue with the Department of Agriculture and the various private seed companies who are operating a business throughout the province of Manitoba, have got a supply of, say, millet seed on hand. Millet seed is something that can be sown any time in June and it can be produced and raised as a hay crop. This is something that many farmers, I hope, understand and realize.

I speak as one from experience, that my hay crop right now, which is brome and alfalfa is practically at a standstill. The brome grass is as dry as it was last fall. There is nothing growing there. The wild hay land, where we have no rainfall, is in the same condition. So, Mr. Chairman, I am hoping that farmers are going to be able to help themselves a little bit in being able to seed, say, oats and millet as a nurse crop to provide hay for themselves and they still have that opportunity up until, we'll say, the middle of June. That's the comment, Mr.

Chairman, I throw, not to discredit my worthy friends from the opposition and I agree with the comments they are making and the concerns they have. But, Mr.

Chairman, we have dealt for a number of hours on this particular matter and I think that when we talk about the District Office Administration, if that is with the Ag Rep offices or whatever have you, that there is going to be some dialogue between them and the farmers of the community, the grain elevators and the seed plants that are operating, will be able to give some assistance insofar as farmers' dilemmas are concerned where they are short of hay supplies for the coming year.

We have discussed the situation right now at hand and facing us for the next two or three weeks, but it seems to be that they are talking about what is going to happen for the next winter supply. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that I think we have dealt with this fairly and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister's office will be talking to, as I said before, grain companies who are scattered throughout the country, seed plants who are scattered throughout the country, and are ready and willing to provide the kind of service that is necessary.

And because it is not usual for us to have to resort of another form of supplies of feed, namely I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that oats and millet are a good example of planting, say, in the middle of June and you can still get a hay supply for next year's supplies for your livestock. I rather sense, Mr. Chairman, this is the sort of discussion that is going on between the Member for St. George and the Minister, Mr. Chairman, and I'm hoping that my comments will help to alleviate, and if they can make any assistance to those farmers who are in this predicament for next year's supplies of feed. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that the Member for Rock Lake - I can appreciate his comments, that he has confirmed what I have said so far. But, Mr. Chairman, you know, it is kind of comical from time to time when I hear members on the government side, when they are in the Assembly from time to time saying -(lnterjec tion) Mr. Chairman, let's set the scenario straight, because if members on this side from time to time do not comment, there is no opposition, Mr. Chairman, isn't there anybody on the opposition side that knows anything about agriculture? Mr.

Chairman, when you come in and ask questions about the seriousness of the situation, we have now the Member for Rock Lake rising and saying, look, we have had enough talk, we have had enough discussion, let's go on. 4003

Monday, 26 May, 1980 Mr. Chairman, what I want to raise with the Minister, and I think he has grasped it, is I really don't want us to get into a panic situation in terms of, should the situation become more severe, that there isn't adequate information in the department for the Minister and his staff to make a decision on whether or not they should have done certain things.

Now is the time, and in fact it is long past; to be able to do an adequate survey and to make sure that the knowledge is within the department as to what feed stocks are available, what is necessary to carry the herds over, what moves should be made in the event that the drought continues. All of us are hoping, of course, Mr. Chairman, that we do get an inch or two or rain generally, as they have gotten in the province of Alberta. I think everyone is hoping that happens.

But certainly the Minister should be aware, with all the facts at his disposal, so that decisions, if they must be made, can be made readily, because he knows what the facts of the situation are. That's the point of raising it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Roblin. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Minister and members of the committee, I think this is the fifth drought that I have lived through. I lived through the Dirty Thirties. I understand the problems of those days; they were much different than today. I have been through other experiences in my lifetime much similar to today.

I agree with most of the sentiments of the members that just spoke; we shouldn't press the panic button. We should watch very carefully and have supplies in place in case. But I want to warn the Minister and his Deputy, let's not get into the fiasco that the former Minister of Agriculture got in, where I have an Order for Return still in the House today of that last feed grow program in this province, absolutely unbelievable, feed all over the place, no accountability, no invoices, everybody picking it up everywhere. I want to impress upon you, Mr.

Minister, and your staff, make sure that you know what you are doing, that you have it under control and that we don't get into that fiasco. I tell you, it had to be bad that time, when the former Minister of Agriculture, who has never given me an Order for Return and I still haven't got it to this day and I know the reason that I couldn't get it is that it was such a terrible situation, absolutely uncontrolled and nobody knew what was going on and feed all over the place, no invoices, and everybody was picking it up and there it sat. That's why I never got my ...

Again, in this condition, let us, when we are using taxpayers' dollars, let's try and be a little more careful than we were the last time and have some accountability under programs. It is difficult; it is not easy and I don't have any quarrel with the former Minister. He got himself in trouble because the people who were picking up this feed, nobody knew who was doing anything or not. I speak for my own constituency, it was bad. Let us, we're using taxpayers' dollars, make sure that we know what we are doing, that everything is under control as far as the expenditure of tax dollars. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Roblin raises an interesting point. I would like to ask the Minister, can he tell us whether or not there were feed stocks left over from -(Interjection)- Well, Mr. Chairman, he took on the reign the year after the situation and the Member for Roblin is alleging that the department and the former administration somehow -(Inte rjection)- I would like to know, Mr. Chairman. Now we have the Member for Roblin saying, Nobody had any records. If there were no records, Mr.

Chairman, how does the member make those allegations, and can they be substantiated? If they can be substantiated, let's have them on the record. I'd appreciate knowing, Mr. Chairman, the validity of the honourable member's complaints. I, for one, what have I, as an individual member, to do with the direction the department took? I was a member of the government, and I wasn't aware of that. And I would like to know, Mr. Chairman. The Member for Roblin has made certain allegations.

Could the Minister of Agriculture now tell us that there was some feed stocks or payments not made or feed that disappeared under the former program because that's certainly the allegations that have been made. I would like to know because I, for one, would be interested in whether the program was mismanaged in any way. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the Honourable Member for St. George, who was a member of the Executive Council at that time, I will go and bring him a copy of the Order for Return tomorrow.

I ask him to search through all his records, and the former Minister, and show me, in any way, shape or form, that they ever provided me with that Order for Return. In fact, if you want to go farther in the debate, I'm still hedging with the Member for St. Johns. I've got a hydro bill in my briefcase and I still have it tonight. When I get that Order for Return, I will deliver that hydro bill, and this is a longstanding problem. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, the records will show that this Minister never saw those records, because I doubt if there were any there. Otherwise I would have got my Order for Return. MR.

URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, can the Minister of Agriculture tell us that there are any records missing, and if so, is he prepared to supply the information to this honourable member so he can deliver us his hydro bill? Because he is now in charge of the Department of Agriculture, and if that's what's hinging on the Member for Roblin's desire or non desire of delivering some information that he says hinges on this Order for Return, Mr.

Chairman, would the Minister comply with that Order for Return that was brought forward by a member of his own caucus, and make that information public to, not only to himself, but to all members. I'm sure the media would be interested in that Order for Return, and certainly the Minister, I believe, has an obligation to bring forward that information, absolutely. I am the first to . . . If that Order for Return has not been filled by the previous administration, then certainly it's incumbent on the Member for Roblin to ask his Minister to say, here, dig up that information, is that 4004

Monday, 26 May, 1980 information available, and get it on the record because I have made allegations and I think I'm right, because right now I'm not sure whether I'm right, but bring forward that information. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, again, here we have the Member for St. Johns here who knows exactly what my argument is on this Order for Return that I've never received to this day, over the hydro bill that I have in my briefcase.

I hate, in the years I have been here, to have to withhold certain information which I have been asked to table, because of the fact that the former Minister of Agriculture never gave me that Order for Return, which I still don't have today in my records. It may have been passed out to some other members, but as far as I am concerned it has never been delivered to my desk. The Member for St. Johns has stood up many times in this place, Mr. Chairman, and chided me about the fact that I am not tabling this hydro bill.

I think I have a right, as a member, at least when that government promised to deliver certain information to me, they never delivered it. I still have that hydro bill in my briefcase today and I will deliver it, but still, before I deliver it, I want that Order for Return. MR. CH AIRMAN: Maybe I could attract the committee, we are straying, a little bit, I believe from 5.(e)(1), District Office Administration. The Member for St. Johns. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, let the record show I walked in just before this last speech by the Member for Roblin, not having the slightest idea that I would be hearing reference. to me and to a longstanding objection I have to the way in which the Member for Roblin treated the Legislature and treated me.

And now that he raised it, let me say that when he unconditionally promised to produce a bill which I claimed would show that he had misled the whole Legislature - and I still believe it would prove that, when he claimed his bills had doubled, and I knew, in my own heart that they hadn't - when I asked him if he would do it, he said he would. He gave his word he would; he gave no qualifications; he gave no excuse for not producing it, he just failed to do it and is continuing to fail to do it. I think it's an affront to all members of the Legislature but I consider it an affront to me.

And I don't treat it lightly or gently. I think the honourable member has behaved very badly taowards a fellow member of the Legislature, because he gave a pledge. And the reason I asked him to give that undertaking is that I didn't believe his statement. I still don't believe the statement he made, and the only way he can prove which one of us is right is by producing the bills. What that has to do with some other Minister doing or not doing something that he wants is complete nonsense and is only an excuse for failing to produce that which he gave his word he would do, and to me, it's just an indication.

He gave his word, unconditionally. The Member for Rock Lake says, conditionally, maybe in his own mind, but who can read his mind? Even the Member for Rock Lake, who sits beside the Member for Roblin, I'm sure, cannot read the mind of the Member for Roblin. It was an unconditional undertaking and if you want me to go back and find Hansard, I can. But as far as I'm concerned, it was unconditional, he failed, his word is not worth expecting in the future, and I don't think I would ask him for his pledge or word in the future because of the way he failed before. So let him not hide or pose behind something else.

The fact is, if he wants some information from the Department of Agriculture, he knows very well where the department is, he sits very close to the Minister, he can get the information, and if it were the kind of damaging information he thinks it could be, then his Minister should be only too happy to provide him with it. The fact that he won't do that, I know he's accusing Sam Uskiw but that has nothing to do with the fact, Uskiw is not the Minister of Agriculture now. And if the member really wants to get information from a Minister, he gets it from the present Minister.

Governments go on and files are available, and if there is information or facts available, he can get it. But he's hiding behind that, deliberately, in breaking his word to me. And I think that it's a discredit to him and to the constituency he represents. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity. MR. McKENZIE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I shall not let those words stand on the record, unless you speak; let me speak, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, really, to the committee, we're really off the subject entirely. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, I'm on a point of order. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Roblin on a point of order. MR. McKENZIE: My integrity, my name is on the line, Mr. Chairman. Let me just put in the record, for once and for all, that this is the record of this government. He talks about my word. I put an Order for Return in for the feed program that happened in Roblin constituency. That was accepted by the Executive Council of that government. That was accepted by the Executive Council. I have never got that word to this day. Not a trace of paper of that feed program, and let not the Member for St. Johns put into the record that my word is not worthy.

What's the word of that former government? They accepted that Order for Return. They accepted it in good faith. They could have turned it down, Mr. Chairman. They could have turned it down. He says, I have no qualifications, he doesn't believe my statements. My statements are in Hansard, and I still have that hydro bill in my briefcase today, and the day that I get that Order for Return . . . I know it's so dastardly, I'm never going to get it, because you never put an Order for Return in until you know the answers.

I knew the answers before I put the Order in, that all these invoices and all this feed was missing. That's why I put it in. But I tell you, Mr. Chairman, let the record show that it's the Executive Council of that government, they accepted my Order for Return and I still don't have it today. And if they want to quarrel with me over that, that I'm still holding - what other vehicle can I use to try and get that Order for Return, except 4005

Monday, 26 May, 1980 withholding a Hydro bill, and that's so small. I'm only a backbencher. I am not on the Executive Council, and let the Executive Council of that former government know that I was unhappy with their feed program. I put in an Order for Return to try and save the taxpayers of this province some money, because I knew what was going on, and I never got the Order for Return to this day. Now the Member for St. Johns says I shouldn't have done it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George. MR. McKENZIE: I'm going home. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, I hope the Member for Roblin doesn't go home, because I believe his Minister has the duty, on behalf of the administration in charge of the Department of Agriculture, that that information be provided. I don't think the remarks of the Member for Roblin should be left unchallenged and the Minister, I believe, has the duty to provide that information.

If that Order for Return has not been filled, then that information should be provided to the member, or to any Member of the Legislature, on that program, because the remarks, if there has been some undue untoward activities with respect to his allegations, they should be brought out, Mr. Chairman, and I, for one, stand behind the Member for Roblin if he says that information wasn't provided to him.

But certainly to go on and make what one could consider political hay and not want the answer, because that really seems to be the avenue of debate in this committee is that, Well, you know, I asked you a question and you didn't bring me an answer and now I really know what the answer is but since you don't want to give it to me, I can tell you that you did a lot of shenanigans, because that's really the tenure of debate that has come about in this committee.

I think it is incumbent on the present Minister of Agriculture to get that information on the record that was suggested and put it on the record because it should not be left that the Member for Roblin still can't get information from even your administration, from his own administration, about whether there were some misdoings or wrongs created by a feed program. I would hope that his comments, Mr.

Chairman, do not influence the Minister in terms of looking at the severity of the situation in the province of Manitoba, and the comments of the Member for Roblin do not prevent the Minister from doing the analysis that I have suggested that he do, so that he can make an adequate assessment as to what kinds of feeds should be purchased and should be stocked up in the event that the situation worsens. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5. (e)(1)-pass; 5. (e)(2)-pass. Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding 5,088,600 for Agriculture-pass. Resolution 11, 6. (a)(1)-pass - the Member for St .. George. MR.

URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could the Minister give us an overview of the branch in terms of the marketing branch and the staff complement, as he has done in others, for the whole division. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, there is an increase of two staff man years in that part of the department in the area of Agriculture Marketing and Development Division. The increased staff are market analysts. The major thrust of the department, Mr. Chairman, is to further support, as I mentioned in my opening comments, to support the market development of agricultural products produced in the province.

It is one of our major areas that we feel, that have been identified, that we can encourage and work to develop. I think there has been certainly a lot of discussion over the past few months on the transporting of grain out of the country, organizations such as the Canadian Wheat Board identifying markets that have been available to them and the need for more rolling stock to provide the grain producers with more capacity to meet the markets that have been identified by the Canadian Wheat Board.

We feel very strongly that this whole development of marketing has to take place within the total agriculture community, that not only is it the respo nsibility of the department to support the private sector to develop new markets but is a matter of working with the farm community and making sure that we are working co-operatively with them, and that is done mainly through the Producer Marketing Boards that are in place. We want to make sure that we are fully supportive of them, particularly when it comes to other markets that are identified in Canada and international markets.

As I have indicated before, there has been a lot of work done with breeding stock market development in Mexico. There is a lot of work being done as far as development of their agricultural industry. They have moneys available and they are very desirous of working with Manitoba producers to use Manitoba livestock in their breeding programs, particularly hogs. They are very satisfied and have received a lot of hogs from Manitoba. In fact, at this particular time, there is a selection group in Manitoba, from Mexico, buying an additional 100 boars at this particular time to take south to Mexico.

That's one of the areas that a lot of work has been done. Another area of market development has been to market poultry products to Japan, the products that we produce in Manitoba, and have been supported by the department as far as the market development is concerned, referred to as Cold Country Product, and there has been a lot of work done there.

The product is very acceptable to the Japanese and we feel it is the responsibility of government to further create an environment of support for those producer marketing boards, plus other areas that we believe it's important to continue to develop, and that's the buckwheat market which the Japanese have been big buyers of. They have taken the majority of the buckwheat that we have grown in the province.

It is very acceptable to them and we, of course, want to continue to supply that market, or have the farmers of the province supply that market, and will do everything we can to continue that kind of trade relationship. I think it is also important to note that in the majority of cases, I think that the farm community, when it comes to providing for both Canadian and international markets, that they are truly interested in 4006

Monday, 26 May, 1980 ,t. I think it is a matter of getting a true and better Jnderstanding of what is available to them, that they as producers should truly understand the kind of market conditions that they are producing for and that it is somewhat a responsibility of government to put a mechanism in place, or to work as the vehicle, to support the exporting companies, to introduce the purchaser of products to Manitoba products, through an organized system, and also to introduce Manitoba producers to the potential customers when it comes to producing goods for them.

I use the example of the Canadian Grains Institute, which has done a remarkable job in introducing Canadian grains to potential customers. I like the concept and I think we certainly want to enlarge on those principles, that we can and we should develop a relationship between, as I said, the producers, the buyers, and the agricultural industry, in demonstrating to those potential customers, or customers of ours, how they can better use the products that are produced here in Manitoba.

It is just not a matter of dumping product at their particular port of entry and saying we've sold to a certain country, but it's a matter of making sure that they are satisfied customers. I think that is a key and, of course, a good example again of that is the buckwheat business. The buckwheat that it produced in Manitoba is very acceptable to the Japanese market and we want to continue to expand and see that that takes place. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could the Minister elaborate a bit more on, for example he has indicated .. .

And I'll go through some of the development work, the specific product marketing that the branch has undertaken. For example, the poultry to Japan, to what extent has the department been able to expand the markets and what has been the situation, say, the last couple of years and how is it moving along into the Japanese market? How are the orders handled? Are they handled through the processors? What mechanism is used and how successful has the branch been with respect to the marketing of, I presume, both chickens and turkeys into the Japanese market? What kind of involvement and exports have there been there?

MR. DOWNEY: First of all, Mr. Chairman, to be specific on the times, particularly in the poultry industry, our first shipments went to Japan in 1978 on a trial basis, supported by staff members from the department, with the Producer's Marketing Board, and in co-operation with some of the processors, that the actual involvement as far as the department was supportive to the two other people involved. It was met with some success.

Again in 1979, there was an increase in numbers of containers shipped, basically on the same basis, that the retailers in Japan purchased the product from the processors in the province of Manitoba and the processors, in conjunction with the producers, provided a certain product for that particular market. I think one of the key items that we have to sell, or one of the key components of the whole trade with Japan, is the quality which we are producing here in Manitoba. The acceptability of the product is somewhat better than what they have been receiving from other areas. There is a good relationship.

Of course, it's a matter of dollars and cents as far as they are concerned, what they can sell it to their consumers at. At this particular point, they have been able to sell Manitoba product for somewhat more money than they have been able to get from their traditional supplies, better well on the quality of the product. Now, it was on a trial basis. I think it was all the producers, the Producer's Board, the processors dealing with the people who were buying at the retail level, and it appeared to me to be a pretty acceptable way to go as far as the province was concerned, and in support of it.

At least all indications were to me, from the Japanese traders, that this was an acceptable way, and the producers indicated the same kind of satisfaction. I guess it's a matter of working on, again, the price differentials and the quality, and they know what we have available. It was started on a trial basis and, at this particular time, I don't know whether there is any more prepared to go, but they are still in a negotiating stage on a continuing basis, offering that product to them.

I don't think, if I have the correct information, that there weren't any particular companies who were buyers of our poultry products prepared to enter into a long-term contract, but we are giving it a trial and it is to be hoped that that will continue to expand. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the Minister indicated that there was an initial shipment in 1978, a first trial basis, and then another shipment in 1979. Has this continued on? Could he tell us how much product was sold? Is there an estimate of how much product was sold - in the poultry, I'm speaking about - to Japan in 1979, and what is expected for 1980?

MR. DOWNEY: An approximate figure, Mr. Chairman, the initial sale was in the neighbourhood of 185,000 of poultry products. MR. URUSKI: That's 1978? MR. DOWNEY: In 1978. In 1979, it went to 330,000 of a sale to Japan. Now, we are into 1980 and it is to be hoped that that will increase. I know the Producer Board and the processors are trying to continue to work aggressively to see that that increases. I think it is a good start into a market that has tremendous potential. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the crop of buckwheat to Japan.

I gather that has been going on for - how many years has it been since the contracting? Are there any long-term contracts between producers and millers of buckwheat in Japan or is it primarily between grain buyers in Manitoba or in Canada through the grain trade? How are the contracts and the sales made in cases of export buckwheat, Mr. Chairman? MR. DOWNEY: Basically, Mr. Chairman, there appears to be a market for all the buckwheat that is grown.

Last year, of course, the buckwheat crop in Manitoba ran into some difficulty with an early frost and caused some concern to the importers and the exporters of buckwheat. The majority of it is handled through the private trade, but working in conjunction 4007

Monday, 26 May, 1980 with some of the farm organizations, or the farmers who are involved. To be more specific we, as a government, aren't selling it, but we are certainly supporting those people who are in the business, and I know that it appears to be again getting information from the people who are buying the buckwheat, that they have been satisfied with the quality, they have got a good relationship with the Canada Grain Commission and their quality is acceptable and I have had, I would say, a good report from the buyers and the growers of buckwheat are also satisified.

It appears that the balance between buyers and sellers is being looked after and, of course, I am sure they would like to see more buckwheat grown in Manitoba, because it is a matter of the more we would have the more they would have, but again it is a matter of making sure that we can supply what they require. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the Minister didn't answer whether there were any long-term contracts entered into between producers and the trade in terms of gro.wing a certain amount of acreage for the market conditions. Is that the case at all in terms of providing long-term stability in terms of supply? MR.

DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I can indicate to the members, to the best of the knowledge that I have within the department, is that they are contracting it on a year-to-year basis with the private trade, and then the private trade in turn contracted with the producers of buckwheat and it is basically meeting the needs. They haven't seen fit to enter into any long-term contracts. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, the Minister travelled, I believe, to Mexico within the last year or so with respect to the hog situation and other export products, indicated that there is presently a delegation in Manitoba looking or purchasing, I think he said, 100 sows ... MR. DOWNEY: Boar pigs. MR. URUSKI: . . . boars for the Mexican Breeding Program. To what extent is the exchange or the sales of hogs and cattle going on to Mexico? Is that a continuous program and to what extent has it grown over the last couple of years? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, it is a continuing program, Mr.

Chairman, and it is growing particularly in the hog industry. Also, there is a good demand for dairy breeding stock, which, of course, there are very limited supplies available in Canada really to supply them. So that is basically the area, plus in the beef breeding business there is a continuing expansion of demand for beef bulls from this country. MR. URUSKI: Has the Minister got any estimate of sales or volume or numbers of livestock purchases that have been made in and out of Manitoba since his trip to that country?

Has there been any significant increase as a result of his further cultivation of the markets that are down there? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the numbers of sales since that particular time, and these are approximate figures, approximately just under 200,000 in beef breeding stock. In the dairy industry there have been something like approximately 60,000 in Jersey cattle in breeding stock and approximately just under 200,000 in swine exports to Mexico since that particular time. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, the Minister also commented on special crops in terms of development of vegetable crops and the like for export. Has there been any market development in this area? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there has been work done with the vegetable industry, particularly on the promotion of Manitoba food products, not only in the vegetables, but in all other agricultural products produced in Manitoba.

The Marketing Branch of the Department have been fairly extensively involved in product promotion days with vegetables produced in Manitoba in a fairly extensive way, both in Manitoba and also extending and trying to expand the markets into Minneapolis; plus at this particular time we find - and this has been first-hand information that I have obtained from the vegetable producers on visits out to particularly the Portage area - where in fact there is a tremendous demand for a lot of our vegetable goods into Saskatchewan and Alberta.

We find that with the amounts that we are growing and the type of quality that we are growing in Manitoba, that they are finding their way into Minneapolis and they are very popular and are moving west somewhat. I think there is a tremendous opportunity for vegetable market expansion, but again it is one of the areas that is very labour-intensive, as the members of the Committee are aware, which is good and it is a matter of trying to continue to assure the producers that they are going to have the availability of workers to support them.

I think that is working out very well and I hope that we are able to continue to expand the vegetable industry, particularly on those soils that have been identified as good areas of good production in vegetables, because there are limitations when it comes to the - feeding. So basically those are the comments, Mr. Chairman. In all areas that we can develop, we are. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the Minister talked about the development of sales of crops of oil seeds, if he didn't it was in the Annual Report with respect to sales to other countries, Great Britain, Scandinavia, Netherlands, and Latin America, Cuba.

Could the Minister indicate what those investigations resulted in in terms of sales for livestock feeding trials, such as in Cuba, for example? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I missed the point the member is making. If I heard him correctly, he is suggesting that there has been work done in South America in livestock trials or . . . I would ask him where he is referring to, what report he is . . . ? MR. URUSKI: I may as well read right from his Annual Report, Mr. Chairman. 4008

Monday, 26 May, 1980 MR. DOWNEY: I know that, but I would like to know in more specifics what he is referring to, because ... MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I quote from the Annual Report of the Department of Agriculture, 1978-79, Sales promotion activity was carried out in cooperation with the Alberta and Saskatchewan Governments and the Rapeseed Association of Canada in Scandinavia, Great Britain and the Netherlands. Investigations of the sale of rapeseed meal for livestock feeding trials in Cuba were also made. Groups from Hungary, France and South Korea also expressed interest in rapeseed purchases. Mr.

Chairman, I would like an elaboration of what results came about as a result of this endeavour by the department. Seemingly there was some work done on market development and the Minister could give us an update on it. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the work that has been undertaken has basically been targeted at introducing rapeseed meal to add to rations that have traditio nally used soybean meal in that type of work.

We worked in conjunction with the Canola Producers Association to support the kind of work that we feel is important to expand the demand for canola meal, particularly when we have one of the major crushers of meal in the province, CSP being at Altona, and we feel it is important that the province participate in those kinds of activities to support the expansion of the products that are produced there, and this is basically it.

I think that we also have to be aware of, in looking at the South American countries particularly, there is an expanding demand for a lot of the grains and oilseeds that are growing in this country. Some several years ago, if the members remember, I think it was Chile where there was a major trade mission went to and found they were received very well. In fact, quite a lot of training has taken place with the Canadian Wheat Board, in particular, since those kinds of trips.

This is the kind of thinking that is behind introducing and working on feed trials to demonstrate to the producers of livestock in South America that we do have a product here comparable to or as good as soybean meal in their feed additives. As far as any direct purchases from those trials, I can't indicate that there have been any take place to my knowledge at this particular time, but it is a . . . MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't being criticial of the Minister in terms of the endeavours.

What I really wanted to know, as well as the thrust the government has in terms of following up these potential markets, is there a thinking behind the government in terms of cooperating with other provinces in possibly setting up satellite trade offices in the countries where, if a proper analysis is done in terms of the developing countries, whether some future potential markets can be harnessed by maybe putting the three prairie provinces, using a common office, in some of the countries, like Mexico, from where we import a substantial amount of our oil products now, it may be worth our while in the long term to join together with out neighbouring provinces and set up a continuous dialogue through a trade office in that country.

Is there some thinking along these lines? MR. DOWNEY: First of all, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Economic Development have set up a trade office in Mexico which the Department of Agriculture have available to them to work with, so that the government efforts can be supported in many areas, and that is the office that we will mainly be working through in conjunction with the Federal Government.

I think the senior government have a fairly important role to play too when it comes to dealing in other countries, and I know that some efforts have been put forward by the Federal Minister in market development, that there should be more agriculture people represented with Industry, Trade and Commerce in countries that sell Canadian products.

I think that is one of the area that there is room to expand and I think the more that we can work with, either the other provinces or the Federal Government, so that we are selling Canadian products, then it is to our best advantage as a partner in the production of agricultural goods. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, Henry J. Einarson (Rock Lake): 6.( a) - the Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minis ter whether he can quantify for us the sort of costs of this thrust.

I have to, first of all, remind the Minister that this was developed during our term of government, and at that time there were certain perceptions about where we would be heading with respect to market development, whether the Minister would like to indicate to us whether we've done some analyses to determine the cost benefits in terms of this particular area. Really I guess I'm dealing with the marketing branch efforts of this section. I don't have to deal with it now, but it's here nor there as far as I'm concerned. Has the Minister been able to sort of tabulate the benefits of that program?

Certainly it's a program that ought to be reviewed, from time to time, to ascertain whether we're just repeating ourselves year after year without achieving very much, or whether in fact we are making some inroads that are meaningful to the province's economy, certainly to agriculture in Manitoba. MR. DOWNEY: I replied earlier, Mr.

Chairman, specifically under which this falls, and I agree with him, I think it's an area where it should be continually assessed, because if it's just a matter of driving up and down the same road looking for the same old customer, that's No. 1, you want to make sure you look after him, but No. 2, the second objective should be to expand the markets and I think that we have a responsibility in the two areas, and I spoke to it briefly.

The poultry industry, we've indicated that there has been substantive sales made, something in the neighbourhood of 185,000 in 1978 to Japan; in 1979, 330,000 worth of products sold to Japan, which are new markets that truly indicate new ground being broken and positive results. Again, I think we have, as I indicated, to look after some of our old customers but try and develop in those areas if we can. And I think one of the ways 4009

Monday, 26 May, 1980 we can do it, and I go back to using the type of program that we see the grain industry using, and that's the market development institute, which has provided some knowledge to those potential customers on what we have available on that and with addition to product, supplying them with some technology on product use. And I can agree with the member that not to keep re-assessing it and seeing if you're doing something new, and the cost benefits have to be there, or it's an exercise in futility, really.

But I think with the poultry products, we've indicated with some of the new areas of livestock that have been opened up, and the potential of going into other areas of South America, plus we have to remember that in a lot of cases the government have to assure those people in the private sector, who are dealing customer to customer, that the government are supportive and we have a liaison on a government to government basis. So to quantify the benefits in dollars and cents there, it's very difficult.

I think it's a matter of good public relations that Canada and the provinces have people to help support those individ uals in trade relations. · MR. USK IW: Mr. Chairman, I would not want to advocate that this particular arm of government or of the department should diminish. It probably might be altered from time to time, but I think it's probably an important part of the department's operation.

I think it's fair, though, to point out that perhaps some of its role should work in tandem with the other provinces, and I'm making reference now, speci fically, to dealings with Japanese companies, who tend to, and I don't blame them for it, play off, sort of, one province against another on given commodities. It seems to me that there is a lot of logic and common sense in the idea of the three prairie provinces, with respect to grains, or special crops, rather, working together in trying to meet these market demands in that market, in the Japanese market, or any market, for that matter.

I don't think it's wise to try to bid against one another interprovincially in western Canada with respect to these special crops. I mean, if you look at pork exports, as an example, I really believe that Canada as a whole should be involved on that one, that it's nonsense to have eastern Canada competing against western Canada, and vice versa, for the same market, because what are we doing?

We are simply undermining the producers of one region versus the other, and it doesn't really bring in more revenue to the economy of Canada, so this is a very large role that I think could be developed by your marketing and development division, Mr. Minister, so that there is much more synchronization of effort across Canada with respect to different commodities.

Now, in that connection, I would like to ask the Minister whether or not anything has evolved to date, or may evolve, in his expectations, from Export Canada West, whether that is still a dormant creature or whether it is starting to make some moves in a direction that would be beneficial to the pork producers of the prairies at least, because we do have, I believe, it's either two or three provinces in that agreement. I can't remember any more, Mr. Chairman, but anyway, I think the idea was good.

It hasn't developed to my knowledge, but I wonder whether the Minister has looked at it and whether there is some possibility of doing something with Export Canada West? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, it should be me asking the questions of the Member for Lac du Bonnet ... MR. USK IW: No, you're the Minister. You were supposed to improve on what we started. MR.

DOWNEY: . . . on Export Canada West, and in fact it wasn't until we had a review of the hog industry that it was really brought to surface what was put in place by the last government, in, I believe it was 1973, and never activated upon, the province of Saskatchewan and the province of Manitoba being participants, shareholders, with one member of the department as a shareholder for the corporation, which I think is somewhat not a traditional type of a move, I wouldn't think.

Now, we're assessing where we're at with that, we've met with the Saskatchewan government and the Alberta government and discussed the whole issue, because there were new Ministers in those particular portfolios. They weren't familiar with what was in place either, and didn't know what kind of a grandiose scheme had been set up by their predecessors to get into the hog business. Now, we're still in the process of trying to track down what kind of socialist kind of a program was to be put in place to take over the hog industry totally.

But again, the producers board have approached me; I've indicated to them that we would meet with the other provinces because it was put together by Minis ters. We still haven't resolved, and it has been indicated by the producer board, if they want to proceed on an agreement, that they could probably do so. Again, I would only respond to the member and say it's under review as far as the Ministers are concerned.

There hasn't been a decision made on whether it will continue or be activated or dissolved, but I would first of all have to re-identify or see what purpose it could be, what the initial objective was, and I haven't been able to uncover that. As as I say, the Member for Lac du Bonnet might be able to inform the committee, but I would suggest that it might have been the intention to work co-operatively to enter into foreign markets would be, I guess, supported by the governments on a trading basis. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, Henry Einarson (Rock Lake): 6.(a)(1)-pass - the Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USK IW: Mr.

Chairman, for the benefit of our Minister, I would have thought that staff may have been able to bring him up-to-date on that, perhaps not. The fact is that it was a corporation established for the purpose of increasing the bargaining power of prairie pork producers, (

a) within the prairie region, within the prairie market, or within the Canadian market, but (

b) with respect to co-ordinating our efforts, with respect to foreign markets, and where we were hopeful that at some point we would get to the stage where we would not be competing with each other for offshore markets. 4010

Monday, 26 May, 1980 So that in essence, I think the idea was good. It was set up, but never used. We did involve both the marketing board of Manitoba at that time, the pork producers marketing board, and the Saskatchewan Commission in on those discussions that resulted in the formation of that corporation. I think there's a lot of potential in that arrangement if it's exploited, Mr.

Chairman, and I would simply suggest to the Minister that he take a look at it and he indicates he has discussed it briefly with his counterpart in Saskatchewan; but that much could be achieved, I think, if they pursue that one, in terms of realizing a better return for their pork producers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: 6. (a)(1)-pa ss; 6. (a)(2) pass; 6. (b)(1)-pass - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, before we go on, the Minister was to give us the SMYs for the whole division. And I don't believe he recorded that, Mr. Chairman. MR. DOWNEY: Thirty-three, Mr. Chairman. MR.

URUSKI: That's for the entire Resolution 6? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: Is there any change in 1980? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it's an increase of two. And I believe I said earlier, it was two market analysts. MR. URUSKI : Are any of those positions still vacant? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the member is aware they are vacant because we haven't approved them yet. MR. URUSKI: I'm not referring to the two that he speaks about, Mr. Chairman; any of those 31 that are there that are permanent, are any of those positions vacant? MR. DOWNEY: One, Mr. Chairman. MR.

URUSKI: Would the Minister care to indicate what position that is? MR. DOWNEY: A food marketing officer, Mr. Chairman. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (b)(2)-pass; (c)(1)- pass; (c)(2) - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister indicate the government's position with respect to, there's a conference going to be held next week, I believe, Mr. Chairman, on grain transportation in Vancouver, could the Minister indicate what the government hopes to achieve at this conference, the nature of the conference and the government's position thus far, Mr. Chairman. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, I'll just take a few minutes to briefly outline basically what all is involved.

First of all, I referred to it earlier as one of the things that had taken place, or one of the major developments as far as the Canadian grain industry, started right here in this office in January of 1978 when the Premier of the province, Sterling Lyon, called all the participants together to discuss the problems that the industry were having in the movement of grain to markets that had been identified by the Canadian Wheat Board or by the private trade; that it seemed that one of our major problems at that particular time was a lack of rolling stock, was a lack of port facilities to move the grain; that it appeared there was a total breakdown in communications between the participants in the industry and was called by the Premier because of the urgency and his concern for the cash flow that had to be injected into the farm community, which in return would, and did, influence the total economy of Canada.

That was identified at the First Minister's conference in November, I believe it was in Ottawa, where the Prime Minister and the ten Premiers indicated that was the major thing that could be done. The Premier picked it up and there was a tremendous response. In fact, one of the major outcomes at that meeting was the decision by the consortium and the provincial government of Alberta to provide funds and the co-operation between the two railroads to agree to service the port of Prince Rupert if, in fact, the facility was built. That commitment came from all participants at that particular meeting.

Subsequent to that, Mr. Chairman, we kept meeting, it was a continuation of meetings between the federal government, the provinces, on the issue of grain handling and transportation, we had a series of meeting. At that particular time, that subject was carried to the Western Premiers Conference in Prince George, and again, the position of discussing the whole statutory rate issue, that in fact the benefits had to be retained for western farmers.

A follow-up to that meeting was again here in Winnipeg in the first part of July to discuss and to come up with certain recommendations; followed by a meeting the end of July in Ottawa with the federal Minister of Transportation, Don Mazankowski, who had moved in a lot of areas to implement more rolling stock, rehabilitate boxcars, lease hopper cars. Some of the other provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, had indicated that they were prepared to purchase hopper cars. We had indicated we were prepared, and made the decision in the fall, to lease cars to alleviate some of the shortfall in rolling stock.

Again, I was continuing on as chairman of that committee of provinces to discuss, on an ongoing basis, and to work in an objective way to resolve some of the problems that were within the political arena on grain handling and transportation, of which the whole issue was being discussed. Again, one of the subjects at the Western Premiers Conference at Lethbridge, again putting pressure on the new federal government to continue on with their commitment, or the commitment that had been put in place by the last government in Ottawa, to provide the infrastructure cost for Prince Rupert.

Coming out of each of these meetings - I want to highlight this in my discussion here tonight - one of the main things that kept emanating from the Premiers and from all the meetings of Ministers, was the support 4011

Monday, 26 May, 1980 for the Port of Churchill. That, in fact, was one of the main items, that we wanted to see the continued use and expansion of Churchill, which I think has and will continue to play a role in the development; plus the concerted effort in the continued development and expanded use of Thunder Bay which, as far as Manitoba is concerned, is out main port to the east, of course, to move the majority of our grains. Also emanating from the continuation of meetings and task force reports was the introduction and implementation of a Grain Transportation Co ordinator in the person of Dr.

Hugh Horner, who has most of all, I would say, provided leadership to the grain industry, to the transportation industry, and to the grain trade, something which I think had to take place and in fact has taken place. The last meeting that was held between the provinces, between Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, was held to further update and, prior to that particular meeting, one of the things that had happened, which was very unfortunate but it is a fact of life, that the federal government changed once again back to a Liberal Party with new Ministers again introduced to the different portfolios.

It was the decision of the provincial Ministers of Agriculture and Grain Transportation at that time to meet with the federal Minister to get an update on their position as a new government on the specifics of the different items that we had been talking about - Churchill. Then following from the Lethbridge meeting, a directive for the Ministers to carry on with the meetings with the different provinces. Again, I proceeded to organize, to manage, to try and get this accomplished, and in fact have been successful, I would say. We have met several times in Winnipeg.

I think it is pretty important that we meet as a group to, once again as provinces, get the input from the new federal government. We haven't had an opportunity to sit around the table and I think that our particular position hasn't changed in any major way as far as any of the things that we have discussed prior to the change of government federally. We are going to the meeting to get input from all the provinces and an update from the new federal government, to see what their position is as it relates to Churchill.

Again, we have heard some public press announcements from the federal government on their position on Rupert and it seems favorable. There will be points on the statutory rate that will be discussed, and to get an update on their position. So basically, that's an overall view of what has happenedj, it is a continuation of meetings. Really, there aren't any changes in position, it's just a matter of getting an update from the federal government who, by the way, have the responsibility to deal with national transportation policies.

But we felt, as provinces, there were a lot of things that could be improved and we had the opportunity to have input. We are sitting around with money invested now, as participants, and I think it is our responsibility to again meet with the federal Minister who is now responsible, the new federal Minister, to give us a complete update on what their policies are on transportation and grain handling. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister for the update that he has given us.

In his remarks he spoke about commitments made by the former previous federal government, the short-lived federal government, with respect to grain transportation and the issue of rail line abandonment, Mr. Chairman. There was a commitment made, I believe, right in this room, at least by the press releases that were issued, to the effect that anywhere that grain companies wished to maintain service, provide service to farmers, that the federal government's commitment would be to retain service to those communities.

If the Minister recalls, the Hall Commission recommended for the Interlake, on the CNR line, the Hodgson Subdivision, or the lnwood Sub, as it is called, the closure of that line and the elevators at Fisher Branch and Broad Valley would be maintained an off-line elevators. Mr. Chairman, there was no decision made with respect to whether or not trains would continue or whether trucks would roll, and during the campaign in February there was an announcement made that the Fisher Branch elevator would continue for a period of five years. Mr.

Chairman, the Manitoba Pool, who are the owners and operators of the facilities at Broad Valley and Fisher Branch, had committed themselves to new facilities in the community of Fisher Branch, in order that they could provide farmers of that area through-put facilities and new facilities, improved facilities, so that the grains that were in that area could be handled efficiently through that elevator. However, when the announcement was made that the commitment was only for a period of five years, Mr. Chairman, no doubt the decision - we can all guess what the decision of Manitoba Pool was.

They could not see themselves spending upwards to half a million dollars in renovating and upgrading the facilities at Fisher Branch because there was no guarantee of service beyond a five-year point. The Minister indicated, in press releases that he made on behalf of the federal Minister and members of the group - I can go downstairs and bring that press release - of the commitment that was made by the federal government that service would be provided to communities where grain companies wish to provide services. Mr.

Chairman, in this case, the grain company was willing and prepared to expand and renovate the facilities in the community, and yet we have a virtual abandonment of that position by the government and we have not heard anything from the provincial government whether they have gone after the federal government to live up to their commitment of providing those facilities, or will the situation in the Interlake, particularly in the community of Fisher Branch, be left to die a natural death and the farmers of that area and north and west of that community will have to haul a distance of 60 miles or more to the nearest elevator in Arborg, Mr.

Chairman. Can the Minister explain that situation. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, let me put the member straight. At no time did I put out any press release on behalf of the federal government. Any press release that would go out would be going out, in conjunction maybe, with the federal government but I've never put out a press release, and have the record show that I have never put one out on behalf 4012

Monday, 26 May, 1980 of the federal government. It is truly the federal government's responsibility to speak for itself. In speaking to the Fisher Branch line that the member refers to, if I remember correctly, the commitment from the Conservative Government was that it would be operated for a five-year period, on a trial basis, as an off-line elevator. Now, I think that's what the commitment was. Again, another reason to meet with the federal Minister at this particular time, to get it clear what the new federal government is prepared to do. -(In terjection)- Well, the member says he'll get the press release.

Our commitment was to support the continued use of the elevator, but not necessarily to say that if it didn't work as an off-line elevator, or if something went wrong, we couldn't commit what is a federal responsibility. I would indicate anything that was probably said, or came out of a meeting, that we supported what was taking place by the federal government, but not speaking on behalf of the federal government. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is going to be attending the federal-provincial conference some time in July.

Is the Minister in a position to indicate whether or not grain transportation is going to be an item on the agenda and, if it is an item on the agenda, whether he can indicate what Manitoba's position is going to be on that question? MR. DOWNEY: I don't know, it's a pretty broad statement to say is grain transportation going to be an item on the federal Minister's agenda. Last year it was an item that was discussed and supported by all 10 provinces that were participants, and the federal government, that continued work had to be put in place and continued on an ongoing basis to improve the system.

I would have to say, at this particular time, that I am sure that there will be a review of the items that were discussed last year, briefly.

I think it will be a matter of updating, but as far as a position, we can state basically that it will be a progress report, plus I think it is part of our responsibility to discuss with the federal government such things as transportation that affect the agricultural industry, particularly when we see the province of Manitoba who have leased cars; we see the province of Saskatchewan who have bought cars; the province of Alberta who have bought cars, the commitments by those provinces to help with the total transportation system, that it will be one of the items.

Now, to specifically state what our position will be, I would ask if he could further clarify what particular item he is talking about. MR. USKI W: Mr. Chair man, the Minister has touched on it. We have the anomaly - well, it's certainly unusual and not expected - that provinces should be involved in the ownership of rolling stock, which is the proper function of the railways, just because the railways are not carrying out their responsibilities.

I just can't understand why it is that the 10 provincial governments and the federal government are not in a position to indicate to the railways that they have to meet their obligations with respect to transportation needs of the people of Canada, because after all, the two railway companies enjoy a monopoly on all rail transport in Canada. They enjoy a tremendous amount of subsidy of one sort or another on various programs of the federal government, and it seems to me that they have not carried out their responsibilities either in moral terms or in legal terms.

They have statutory obligations that they have not lived up to now for a couple of decades and certainly in the last decade it has become very revealing that they have totally neglected to meet the obligations under the statutory rates, in terms of hauling grain. It may be that they would like to improve their returns in terms of grain transportation, but the fact is that we do have a statute in terms of Canadian law that requires that they haul the grain at certain rates. Therefore, until that is changed, to do otherwise is tantamount to strike action.

Well, it is strike action; it is strike action on the part of the CPR and the CNR, in an effort to convince government to remove or, in fact, enhance their returns under the statutory rates. It seems to me that the province of Manitoba has to have a position on that. How long are we going to continue to let the railways off the hook in their responsibilities, while it is costing the taxpayers of this province and of this country millions of dollars in the provision of rolling stock. Whether it be leased or whether it be owned, it is a burden that has been passed on to taxpayers, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know why Manitoba taxpayers should pay one penny towards the cost of hauling Manitoba grain. I can't understand the logic of that whatever, given the fact that there are statutory provisions to cover that aspect. I would like to know what the Minister's position is going to be, or is for that matter. I really don't know what the Minister's position is with respect to requiring the railways to do what they are supposed to do under present law. MR. DOWNEY: Very briefly, Mr.

Chairman, I agree with the member; I believe the railroads, it is their responsibility to provide the equipment and the material for the movement of product in this country, that is number one. Number two, there appeared at the federal level to be an inability to make that happen. I cannot be responsible for the inability of a federal government to enforce the laws of this country. The question, as far as that is concerned, is really I can't do anything about it under the estimates that we are debating here tonight. That is, of course, Mr.

Chairman, one of the reasons that we went in on a short-term lease basis, was that we did not feel that it was the responsibility of the Manitoba taxpayer to enter into a long-term commitment to provide funds, where it is in fact the responsibility of the railroads or the federal government if they are unable to force the railroads to do it. I don't have any problem agreeing with the member that it isn't the province's responsibility.

However, we saw a co-operative action taken by the provinces and by the federal government, and it is in that spirit that we went in on a short-term basis to help what was truly identified as an immediate probl em, to increase cash flows within the agricultural community. He is not getting a major 4013

Monday, 26 May, 1980 debate, as far as I am concerned, on whose responsibility it is. MR. USKI W: Mr. Chairman, what the Minister is indicating is that two different governments at the federal level have not been able to meet the railways eyeball to eyeball on this issue. MR. DOWNEY: It should be the socialists. MR. USKI W: Yes, I think he is right, it maybe should be the socialists, because I think they would. Mr.

Chairman, one of the railway companies is owned by the people of Canada and certainly the people of Manitoba are playing a part there and it seems to me that any Minister of the Crown worth his salt in the Ministry of Transport should be able to spell out some certain expectations on the part of the government of a publicly owned railways. Mr. Chairman, the Liberal Government and the Conservative Government have shied away from that option. MR. DOWNEY: You didn't give the Conservatives long enough; they were just getting into gear. MR. USK IW: Didn't give the Conservatives long enough. Mr.

Chairman, they had too long. MR. DOWNEY: Six months. MR. USK IW: Six months was a disaster, Mr. Chairman, but that is an opinion and I appreciate that it is mine. MR. DOWNEY: So do we. MR. USKIW: don't mind admitting that I helped shorten it. MR. DOWNEY: yourself. You should be ashamed of MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is we had the Conservative Government under John Diefenbaker's leadership for a period of years, but this issue was not dealt with.

We had the Liberal Government for many many more years in power, and they will not use the instrumentality of a Crown corporation to bring this issue to a head. MR. DOWNEY: We got a Crown corporation. MR. USKI W: Mr. Chairman, the CNR is owned by the people of Canada and it can be directed by the government of Canada, from time to time, with respect to its obligations under statutory law. There is no question about that.

All it would take is a directive from the Minister of Transport that would indicate to the President of the CNR that he would expect that they would live up to the spirit and the letter of the law, which requires them to haul grain at certain rates. If that were done with respect to the CNR, then, of course, it follows from that that the CPR would be expected to do the same thing. But I would hazard a guess that because of the lobby from the CPR, lobbying with the various governments from time to time, that the CNR is not allowed to perform that useful role for its shareholders.

If that were the case, the position of the CPR would be totally pre-empted and therefore we witness the spectacle of governments propping up Canadian Pacific Railway Company in this issue. That is really what it is all about, Mr. Chairman. I suggest that the Minister here could play a useful role in making the point at a federal-provincial meeting, which he has to attend at least once a year but I know he attends more than that, and that where anything short of that is a shirking of his responsibility, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I think, Mr.

Chairman, if we pass laws in this province we expect people to adhere to them and if they don't there are certain ways of dealing with that. It seems when it comes to railway companies we have no way of dealing with it. At least, the government has been reluctant to apply the tools at hand to deal with the flagrant violations that are taking place in railway transport. MR. CHAIRMAN: 6. (c)(2) - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I wish to come back to the Minister and the Minister indicated that he made no commitment on behalf of the federal government.

He acknowledged - I may have used the wrong choice of words - but certainly he, on behalf of his government, acknowledged a commitment and welcomed a commitment and accepted a commitment on behalf of the federal government, and I wish to quote from the press release dated July 6th, 1979, Mr.

Chairman, and I quote: There was also unanimous acceptance of the commitment by the Federal Transport Minister Don Mazankowski to retain service to those branch lines on which elevator companies wished to retain service and added that they would approach the Federal Minister for an urgent meeting to discuss grain handling and transportation issues. On the 13th of July there was another press release from this Minister, Mr. Chairman, and in the press release it heads Downey Welcomes Rail Branchline Freeze. Mr.

Chairman, it says, Agriculture Minister Jim Downey says he welcomes the announcement by the Federal Minister to the effect that rail branchlines will be retained where grain companies have undertaken to build new facilities, upgrade present ones, and continue to provide adequate existing service. Mr.

Chairman, I ask this Minister, in view of that commitment that was made by the Federal Minister, in view of the acceptance of that commitment by this government, how does he expect the community of Fisher Branch and the Manitoba Pool Elevators to provide adequate service on a timeframe of five years, when we know that if they are to upgrade service, and I want to quote to you in a letter, Mr. Chairman, dated July 24th, 1979, from J.D. Deveson, President of Manitoba Pool Elevators to myself, where I raised a question of facilities in the community, and I want to quote one paragraph, Mr.

Chairman, from that letter: We further indicated that the Manitoba Pool would be prepared to continue service at Fisher Branch on an off-track basis, providing that the federal 4014

Monday, 26 May, 1980 government cover the cost of hauling that grain from Fisher Branch to a point serviced by rail, and also that it provided for covering the additional cost of a second handling. We also indicate, however, that we would be prepared to continue to operate the elevator at Fisher Branch in the event that lnwood sub was retained. So in either case, Mr.

Chairman, Manitoba Pool was prepared to upgrade the facilities and either the branchline remain, which was the first position of the former government, or in the event that the branchline was abandoned, they were still prepared to operate an elevator there. We have a bit of a spectacle here, Mr. Chairman. We have the provincial government indicating that it accepts the federal government's undertaking, yet we don't have a follow-up from the province to the federal government sayin g, live up to your commitment, you indicated that you are prepared to provide service, where is that service. All we have, Mr.

Chairman, is an undertaking for five years. Would the Minister of Agriculture of this province be prepared to pump into that community a half-a million dollars on a five-year guarantee to that community of service or is he indicating that there was something else in the commitment that we are not aware of? I would like the Minister to tell me how the people from that community are prepared to react to the positions that were publicly enunciated by himself, by his group and by the Federal Minister of Transportation. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, to respond briefly, I think the member was correct in the statement that he had made earlier about whether I was speaking on behalf of the federal government. I acknowledged a policy statement made by the federal government, we supported it, to be more specific, on the point of where that stands, and that is another reason for the meetings with the federal government that are now in place. The government has changed. There was a commitment by the Conservative Government to use that particular point that he is referring to, of Fisher Branch, as an off-line elevator over a five-year period.

I think it is a matter of seeing whether the community accepted it or not. I don't think that it is a matter of the province committing money. If the mem ber is recommendi ng that it should be a government elevator in there providing service, then why doesn't he say that, that he wants the private company to be taken over or replaced by a provincial grain elevator? If that is what he is referring to by getting a commitment of provincial funds, then he should say that.

I again want to make it very clear to the Committee at this particular time that what we are doing, meeting with the Federal Minister, is to be assured of what his policies are in relationship to the elevator that he is referring to at Fisher Branch. What are the federal government's policies at this particular time? It is a new Minister, a new government. Is it a carry-on of the last federal government; is it a carry-on of the policies of the federal government prior or do they have a new approach to take to the particular line that he is referring to? I can't speak for the federal government, Mr. Chairman.

It is a matter of getting a specific up-date on what he is proposing on that particular line, or those lines that have been dealt with by the last Conservative Government, which I am in total disagreement with the Member f9r Lac du Bonnet on whether or not they were there too long, and they didn't have a real opportunity to really display to the people of Canada the good that they could do, and he should be totally ashamed of himself for trying to put that party out of office and replace it with a government that believes totally in state control of the grain industry. MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(cX2) - the Member for St.

George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know from the Minister what specific response did the government make to the announcement that was made in December of 1979, and that is some seven months ago, that was made by the Federal Minister with respect to, and I believe it was the report that was commissioned by the Member of Parliament, Doug Neil, from Saskatchewan, I believe, he is an MP from Moose Jaw, if I recall correctly. His report recommended that the grain from Broad Valley and Fisher Branch would be transported by truck to Arborg, Mr. Chairman, but · only for a five-year period. Mr.

Chairman, the point that I was making to the Minister, maybe he misunderstood me, I indicated would this government be prepared to put a half million-dollar investment into a community where they were only guaranteed a five-year commitment on the hauling of grain? I doubt whether they would. And that is the reason, Mr. Chairman, I am pursuing this matter, to find out. This Minister has indicated that it seemed that the former government did very little in terms of rail line abandonment, and there was a lack of action, Mr. Chairman. Well, more than seven months have gone by since this announcement was made.

I would like the Minister to tell me what response did they make, did he, on behalf of his government, make, to that announcement that was made in December of 1979, some seven months ago, in light of the statements that he made approximately a year ago where he welcomed the decision and accepted the commitment of the Federal Transport Minister, a commitment, which I submit, Mr. Chairman, was not kept.

The line is allowed to flounder with indecision, and as a result the commitment to have improved facilities in a community of Fisher Branch will not be kept by Manitoba Pool Elevators, a commitment that was made by the former Transport Minister, a commitment that was accepted by this government, and should have been followed up in light of that announcement. It was followed up, Mr. Chairman, by myself. We wrote, through the Member of Parliament for that area.

I have yet to receive a response, even though it was in December; possibly my colleague did receive one, but I have yet to receive a response of the federal government's position in this respect. I'm wondering whether the province made any statements or any representations to the federal government when this announcement was made. I'd be interested to know. 4015

Monday, 26 May, 1980 MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the member is asking whether or not we, as a province, I believe, support what was recommended by the last Federal Minister, to be specific, and earlier indications are that we did support what position he put forward on that particular line.

I think we're talking a situation of a five-year trial that was one of the proposals on the off-line elevator concept, that the individuals who were using that facility, or it was providing a service to them; I guess the point he is arguing most of all is what commitment is there from the elevator company or from the government to provide a service for a longer period than five years.

Or is he asking the question, to be more specific, are we going to force the elevator company to update that facility? - (Interjection)- Well, then I don't understand what he is saying at this particular point, because I'm telling him, I want the federal government to either confirm the last government's position on that facility or to indicate to us where they're at as far as that particular line and that elevator is concerned. I haven't had a response, or we can't respond until we discuss it with them. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, maybe the Minister, again, didn't understand me. I'll make myself more clear.

First of all, does the Minister feel that the announcement made by the federal government in December of 1979 met its earlier commitment of July; that you, Mr. Minister, wrote and accepted that the rail lines would retain those branch lines on which elevator companies wished to retain service. Mr. Chairman, it appears that the grain companies are prepared to supply a service to farmers, but yet it appears that the federal government, although making this statement in 1979, are not prepared to live up to their commitment.

Do you, sir, do you believe that the commitment that was made in July of 1979, by the information that I brought forward to you today, was kept by the federal government or do you believe that, in light of the statements made by the federal government, this commitment was kept? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: I'd like to know, Mr. Chairman, the Minister says, yes, yes what? Could the Minister indicate what he believes yes? I'm not going to let him off the hook now. I want to know what his position is with respect to that federal commitment. Yes what, Mr. Chairman? MR.

DEPUTY CH AIRMAN, David Blake (Minnedosa): The Honourable Minister. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the member has gone all over the waterfront on the particular elevator we are talking about, and I have indicated that we felt it was a position taken by the Conservative government under Don Mazankowski; it was a responsible position, one that he supports, I'm sure, as a member for that area. At least, he hasn't indicated anything different in his comments here tonight.

I can't indicate at this particular time, until I have a firm indication from the new federal Minister of Transport, what his position is on that particular line. As far as I am concerned, it is the ongoing commitment to that point that was put in place by the federal government. I haven't been informed of any change. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ with the Minister. Either the Minister did not hear of the announcement that was made to retain the line for only a period of five years, on the basis of trucking, or he doesn't think there was an announcement made in December.

Maybe I should bring that to his attention and indicate to him that there was an announcement made which I believe is contrary to the original position, which he accepted. I accept that position, Mr. Chairman, that where grain companies are prepared to provide a service that rail lines should be maintained. Mr. Chairman, I believe this government accepted it, certainly by the statements that the Minister himself made in July of 1979. However, less than six months after that announcement, Mr.

Chairman, there was an announcement indicating that only for a period of five years would service to the community of Fisher Branch be guaranteed. Can the Minister tell me whether that is an acceptance of the original statement, or that is a reversal of policy, if one can put it in such terms? MR. DOWNEY: No, Mr. Chairman. I don't think it's reversal of policy. As far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of quantifying the amount of time, the length of time that that service was guaranteed rail service.

Now, the other part that has to be brought in is the introduction of a trial trucking system that, as far as I understand it, if that is not acceptable and not workable, then the decision at that particular time would have to be dealt with. But as far as I am concerned, the objective is to provide that community with an ongoing elevator service and rail service, as long as it's feasible and the company and the farm community, who are . . .

Basically, it's a farm company that is run by a farm organization, it's a co-operative movement, that we have sup ported all those communities that have identified that they want to maintain their elevator and rail service. We supported them; it isn't any different in that particular community than anywhere else. However, there was the discussion, since the Hall Commission, of using that particular line or that particular point as a trial point for trucking, and I MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, I see the Minister waffling in terms of the position of the present provincial government and trying to get out from a position that the province has accepted with respect to federal commitments. He is trying to now, it seems to me, trying to backpedal the province's position and commitment to rural Manitoba. Mr. Chairman, if the Minister doesn't remember, the Hall Commission recommended that elevator services be continued to the community of Fisher Branch and Broad Valley, indefinite, Mr. Chairman. However, the concept of an offline elevator be the route that the service be provided. Mr.

Chairman, there was no limit of a five-year period to that community with respect to elevator facilities. The five-year period came into being on the reversal, I maintain, Mr. Chairman, the reversal of federal position with respect to providing service to 4016

Monday, 26 May, 1980 that community. It seems, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister, although he has gone on record indicating that he supports the position of rural communities, has done nothing with respect to objecting to the announcement made by the federal government, his own federal government, and now he is trying to sit here and defend their position and indicate that their position is the right one with respect to the policy taken that they would provide rail service to those communities in which elevator companies wanted to retain service. Clearly, Mr.

Chairman, the Manitoba Pool Elevators is prepared not only to maintain service but to upgrade those facilities. Surely, Mr. Chairman, there should not have been any five-year period. There should have been a rejection of the federal position, and a communique from the province to the federal government indicating, live up to your commitment, you should not be abandoning this line whatsoever because you have indicated your position quite clearly, in July of 1979; this is clearly a reversal of position. Now this Minister, Mr.

Chairman, comes before this committee and says, well, I'm prepared to accept a five-year period because we're not going to guarantee this community service beyond that point. Clearly a reversal of the Hall Commission Report, and this Minister says that he is the friend of rural communities? Clearly, Mr.

Chairman, with that kind of an attitude and that kind of a governmental position, it can only mean disaster for the community of Fisher Branch and those farmers, many of whom are just developing north of Hodgson area, where they have to now transport grain into Fisher Branch, a distance of some 40 miles one way, Mr. Chairman. If that elevator closes, after the initial five-year period in Fisher Branch, they will be forced to travel approximately 80 miles one way to an elevator point. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the Hall Commission did not recommend that the elevator service be discontinued.

It recommended a new concept but, Mr. Chairman, that concept was overwritten, at least by the federal Minister, and was agreed to by the provinces and this Minister, indicating that they would guarantee transportation services to any delivery point to which the companies have made long-term commitments to provide handling services. The Manitoba Pool Elevators are prepared to make a long-term commitment but, Mr. Chairman, they are not given an opportunity. They are given a five-year period. There is no way. The Minister says that maybe it should be a government elevator.

There is no way that I even made such a statement; there is no way that Manitoba Pool Elevators would want to invest in a community half-a-million dollars to provide new elevator facilities to increase the grain handling capacity of that community. Surely it should be the position of this Minister that he will, and he should have, six or seven months ago, objected to that position. Now he says, well, I will approach the new government and the new Minister to see what his position is.

Can the Minister at leastacknow;edge that the position taken by hiscounterpart in December of 1979 was a reversal ofposition and he is prepared to argue on behalf of thecommunity and the residents of the interlake? MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(cX2)-pass - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, it appears that this Minister is not prepared to give any commitment to the interlake. I don't intend to let him off the hook as easy as that, by not answering the question.

Either he is prepared to give an undertaking that the policy has been reversed; he is, by his silence, it appears, going to acknowledge that the federal government was right and that there is no commitment to rural Manitoba with respect to rail line abandonment.

It appeared that he is prepared to allow deterioration of facilities in those communities and not give a long-term commitment to the grain companies, as he said in July of 1979, as he said twice in July of 1979 on behalf of himself and the federal Minister, where he praised the federal Minister of Agriculture and said that he would bring in service to communities that the elevator companies agreed to service. Now he is waffling on that position, Mr. Chairman.

Certainly it can do no good to the position of rural Manitoba with respect to this government's actions and their position with respect to rural development and rail line abandonment. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that rail line abandonment will increase the cost to farmers by forcing them to haul their grain those longer distances. We know that the hauling of grain by truck is approximately five times as expensive as hauling grain by train. Mr. Chairman, since the Hall Commission in 1975, we know that oil prices have increases by, well, at least 60 percent in the last five years.

What are the oil prices going to be five years from now, Mr. Chairman, 10 years from now? Where are we going to get the fuel to grow food? Mr. Chairman, clearly rail line abandonment will force marginal producers out of business. The loss of these family farms will cause a decline in communities and, as a result, service to the entire rural life will change in a drastic way, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, maintaining those branch lines, I believe, is in the national interest.

Farmers, we know, contribute, what is it now, about 2.5 billion to the balance of payments through the export grain sales, and the federal government we know now, and this Minister agrees with their position, has agreed to try and get the grain companies to haul the grain and increase exports by 1985 by 50 percent, so that the viability of branch lines now makes this an increased measure that should be undertaken and should be kept, because unless branch lines are maintained, how will we achieve those exports of grain that we are striving for to increase by 50 percent by 1985? 4017

Monday, 26 May, 1980 Mr. Chairman, wherever grain companies are prepa red to provide a service, we should be prepared to put into the basic network those branch lines. This Minister has said nothing. He has tried to skim over and gloss over the issue that I have raised. I have indicated that there has been, not only a neglect, a reversal of position on behalf of the federal government and on behalf of this government, who said that they are in support of rural Manitoba. Mr.

Chairman, I would hope that this Minister would have in the last - he has had half a year since that announcement - would be able to say, here, Mr. MLA from the Interlake, we have wired the federal government, we have objected to their position of only putting a five-year life on this line; here is the action we have taken on rail line abandonment as it relates to the Interlake, we will protect that line. -( Interjection)- Yes, I did, Mr.

Chairman, I prepared a letter for myself and for the Member of Parliament, as he was on the campaign trail at the time, and I did prepare a letter and if you want I will read you that letter with respect to this. Mr.

Chairman, ordering the branch lines retained does not solve the problem if railway companies refuse to provide suitable and adequate service, but I believe that this government should be able to reverse their position that they have put so far, because they have put a position to the federal government that it's okay that the railways be paid an increased rate and maybe the farmers should get the benefit of the rate. Talk about a government who wishes to bring about ·e fficiency in public service, right now we have two subsidy cheques going to the railways.

What this government is proposing is to send a cheque to what, 180,000 farmers in Canada, Mr. Chairman? Talk about a transfer of payment from the railways so they can say, yes, we are subsidizing the farmers with respect to the transportation of grain. Is that the friend of the farmer, the friendly Conservative Party? That's the proposal that they are making.

Rather than going by the legislation and indicating that the railways have not lived up to their commitment, that the railways be told clearly: It is in your charter that you are to provide service to the farmers of western Canada and if you don't provide that service, there is only one way, give up that charter, Mr. Chairman, that would be the position. It would be clear and simple. -( Interjection)- Mr. Chairman, absolutely. The railways now are using blackmail on the federal government and the Liberals, like the Tories, will accede to that blackmail. What do we have?

The spectacle of the CPR indicating that it needs to build an extra tunnel through Roger's Pass. But you see, Mr. Chairman, even though they indicate that 25 percent of their frieght business is grain, they are not about to spend that 300 million on that tunnel unless, of course, Mr. Chairman, they are paid compensatory rates - not comprensatory rates because now they are talking about commercial rates for the hauling of grain. Mr. Chairman, nothing but blackmail. Mr.

Chairman, nothing short of blackmail on behalf of the governments and a total rejection of their charter, of the railways' charter, would put the railways in their place and order them to provide the service that they have been neglecting to provide over the years. That is the kind of a position that the provinces should be taking. No, we have the Conservative Government of Manitoba saying: Yes, those poor railways, even though their profits have increases by 200 percent in the last year or so, Mr. Chairman, from all their sources, they really need more money to haul grain.

This Minister, on a little matter of a rural line where the federal government has reversed its position, is prepared to go out on the limb and say they have the right position because we are not prepared to defend the people of the community of Fisher Branch; but not only the community of Fisher Branch, it is the communities all the way from Chatfield to Red Rose, Mr. Chairman, all the farming communities of that area that will be affected by this move.

Surely this Minister should have enough foresight and, I believe, some integrity, and indicate his disgust with the position put forward by the federal government and be prepared to indicate that he accepts the position of the community and accept the former position of the previous federal government, again restate it and indicates that there has been a reversal of position and demand that service be maintained for the community of Fisher Branch. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, Henry J. Einarson: The Honourable Minister. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, and I'll be very brief in response to the Member for St.

George, I think if he is trying to draw me out he has been fairly successful in doing so in some of the comments he makes, but I think one of the things that I should put on the record is that it is not a little matter to me because a community in Manitoba could lose their elevator or rail

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-65b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf 65b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	01fc81be9b66954ba2979337149235ae7a5362e7

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