Manitoba Committee Hansard — 12 July 1978 (Agriculture and Food Committee, Sitting 1, 31st Legislature, 2nd Session)

31-2-ag1

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE ON STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE Chairman Mr. Robert Anderson Constituency of Springfield Wednesday, July 12, 1978 8:00 p.m. Printed by P.N. Crosbie- Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba

Time: 8:00 p.m. Hearing Of The Standing Committee On Standing Committee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 CHAIRMAN:Mr. Robert (Bob) Anderson. Nomination and El ection of Mr. Anderson as Chairman. (Agreed). MR. CHAIRMAN: The first item of business should be the determination of a quorum. There are 11 members of our Committee. A motion would be in order to determine a quorum. I would suggest six in number. (Agreed). A motion would also be in order that the proceedings this evening be recorded and transcribed. uMOTION presented and carried. MR.

CHAIRMAN: This evening we are considering Bill No. 25, The Cattle Producers Association Act. There are 39 briefs. Is there anyone here who wishes to present a brief and whose name is not yet on this list? MR. ALBERT DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, before we start, I wonder whether we cou ldn't maybe establish a length of the presentations per individual? MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there some wish of the Committee as to the length of presentations? MR. DRIEDGER: I believe the other Committees have a limitation of 30 minutes, and I would so move this. MR. CHAIRMAN: Moved by Mr. Driedger, and seconded by Mr.

Einarson, that the presentations be restricted to 30 minutes. MOTION presented and carried. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. SAMUEL USKIW: I don't know what it is, Sir, that the member who moved the motion has in mind. lt seems to me that we don't have very many briefs, and to that extent, that it would be reasonable for the Committee to give a great deal of latitude with respect to the time that an individual may wish to utilize in the presentation of any one brief. There is no necessity for a restriction on the time limit on presentation, so I object to that motion, Mr.

Speaker, on that those bases. it's not as if we had hundreds of briefs to hear. MR. CHAIRMAN: According to the list I have here, there are 39 in number. As I understand it, or as is the practice in our other Committees, the presentations are restricted to 30 minutes, but there is no restriction on the time for questions. Will that be satisfactory to the Committee? MR. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, if I may pursue the point.

If it were that we had 10 0 briefs or so, I could understand such a motion, but given the fact that we only have 39, I don't think that it's necessary. lt seems to me that members of the government seem to be in a hurry to get through with this Committee. I don't see the urgency. I don't believe that the other Committee is going to be through before another day, and therefore there is ample opportunity to hear out the people that are presenting views on Bill 25 in this Committee. Most likely, as it appears to me, the two comm ittees will probably wind up at about the same time.

So I would suggest that we not have any restriction on the time for presentations. If the Chair wishes to pursue it, or the government wishes to challenge that, that's fine. it's their prerogative to vote for a time limit but I object to 1

Standing Committee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 it, Mr. Chairman. DRIE DGERMR.: Mr. Chairman, I believe that a precedent has been set in thE other comm ittees. When you have any amount of presentations that are going to be heard, we'rE looking at 39 brie fs that have to be presented and if there's no time limit on it, I can see all kind� of problems and, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the question on the motion. MR. CHAIR MAN: Mr. Downey . MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief comment.

I believe in the other comm ittees so far this session, they have set the time limit to 30 minutes. However, if individuals were to run over that particular time, I'm sure that if it were near the end of a brief that some extra time could be allotted at the request of the individual giving the brief and I'm sure that the members of the comm ittee would be quite reasonable in that regard. I think that if we could get co-operation to a 30-minute limit, that we could get along quite well. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I simply want to point out that while I can understand the logic of the government who want to wind up the sesssion, I can't understand the logic of the government not wanting to hear presentations in full on a measure that takes away the freedom of the people of Manitoba, the very fundamental point at issue here. Therefore, I think it's a very dictatorial move on the part of the government to curtail the rights of the citizens of Manitoba on an issue that is going to remove their freedom. This is just another move to reduce the participatory policy of our past years in government. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Einarson. MR. EINARSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, having listened to the comments from other members of this comm ittee, I don't think that we want to take any more time than necessary in order that we may hear the briefs of the people that have come a long way that we may hear them tonight. I believe that having listened to the Member for Lac du Bonnet, foll owed by the comments from the the Minister of Agriculture, I feel that the Minister has been very reasonable. If someone has a brief that may go beyond slightly beyond the 30 or 40 minutes, that we are prepared in this comm ittee to allow tolerance and agreement.

I think that we have to have some guidelines, and I don't accept the comment from the Member for Lac du Bonnet that we're being dictatorial. I am one who has never been that kind of person. I don't want to give the impression to the people that have come in here to present their brie fs that we are being dictatorial. That's the- farthest from the truth, Mr. Chairman, and I ·would not want the people to leave this comm ittee having the impression that we are being dictatorial.

I think the Minister of Agriculture has made the point very reasonable insofar as we are concerned and I think that while we are saying 30 minutes as a guideline, the Minister has indicated that we are prepared to, if necessary, extend a little beyond that time. So, Mr. Chairman, I believe we will now deal with the motion and go from there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, in light of the remarks of the Member for Rock Lake, that the com iT'ittee is very much disposed towards a great deal of flexibility, I fail to see the reason for the motion. lt seems that we are in agreement but we have the motion now in our way, so I suggest to the member that he withdraw the motion. A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the results being as follows: Yeas 6, Nays 4. MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is carried. Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Clerk can clarify for us what is provided within the rules with respect to challenging that motion beyond this comm ittee. In other words, Mr.

Chairman, can the Clerk advise whether this commit tee can call Yeas and Nays on this motion. A MEMBER: Wait four years, Sam , we'll have an election. MR. CLERK: My understanding of the rules is that the Chairman of the Committee will decide all questions of order within the com mittee themselves. 2

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 MR. USKIW: Okay, that's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall we proceed? (Agreed) The first name on the list is Mike Tacz ynski from 3ypsumville. A MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, I'm just wondering if there is consideration as looking over the list I see there's some in from Swan River, Beulah, and Elkhorn, that are well in excess of 200 miles. I wonder if there's any thought on your part to serve those people that wish to be on early that do come say mileage in excess of 200 or some . . Is there a possibility of that being considered? MR.

CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken. Perhaps if we can start with Mr. Taczyn ski's brief and those people within the audience who come from those substantial distances could make themselves known to the Clerk and your briefs will be heard before we finish this evening. Is that suitable? MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, on that point, I'm wondering whether there has been any commitm ent given to any of these people with respect to the time that they might be expected to present their brief because if that were the case, then we would be wrong in trying to deviate from that commitment. MR.

CHAIRMAN: To my understanding, there has been no commitment made to anyone. MR. USKIW: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we perhaps may well proceed and let good judgment and good will and common sense preside and we will attempt to acco mmodate the most distant people in the best way we can. Is Mr. Tacz ynski present? The next name is Jacie Skelton, Regional Co-ordinator, National Farmers Union. MS. SKEL TON: That's Jacie. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I stand corrected. lt has also been called to my attention that this is a peculiar sound system and you have to speak very close to the microphones or the equipment picks up some radio stations within the surrounding area. MS. JACIE SKEL TON: I was just wondering on a point of order. I know that some people aren't here tonight and would like to have their names put to the bottom of the list. I'm asking if this is possible to be done. MR. CHAIRMAN: That is normal procedure. MS. SKEL TON: When they're not here, their names go to the bottom of the list. MR. CHAIRMAN: That is correct. MS. SKEL TON: Okay.

The purpose of this submission is to reiterate the view of the National Farmers Uni on on the principles contained in Bill 25. The Conservative election campaign platform in 19 77 was to free Manitobans from Legislative government controls, thus developing a competitive, free enterprise system. Bill 25 places controls on cattle and beef producers in Manitoba. lt is telling, not asking, them to belong to a government legislated organization. The government is creat ing a private association. In no way will Bill 25 help the economic well-being of the farmer. Princip les of democ racy have. been violated.

The National Farmers Union challenges the government to conduc t a plebiscite to prove that the majority of beef and cattle producers do want this associat ion. The majority decision will be accepted as the wish of the producers. In February, 19 74, a beef check off plebiscite was conducted. 3,245 were against; 2,450 won in favour. With this being the concensus of beef and cattle producers four years ago, a plebiscite is a necessity to prove that attitudes have changed. Forming such an association could result in an emba rrassment to this Manitoba Government.

For example, the Alberta government established such an association without a plebiscite. They have discovered that producers are not interested in 3

Standing Committee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 19 78 in a legislated compulsory organization. lt is evident that people must be participants in the plannin� and structuring stat stages of the formation of an organization before they are interested. Even though the legislation states that producers will elect their own producer representatives. only 4 percent bother voting. This was in Alberta. When government legislates the formation of an organization without asking those concerned, it perverts freedom of choice. The Alberta governmen1 is now facing political embarrassment.

Even though it believes in the Crow rates, the legislated organization, the Alberta Cattle Commission, is promoting the removal of the Crow rates' agreement. This is causing growing discontent amongst the majority of farmers who traditionally, over the years, have supported the retention of the statutory rates. This is resulting in growing pressure on the Alberta government to put the credibility of the Alberta Cattle Commission to a vote of the producers. The Manitoba Government has opted out of an objective position by introducing Bill 25. The government has said that producers want this legislation.

The producers have not stated this fact. The government has not publicized Bill 25 to the cattle producers of Manitoba. lt has dealt with the principles of the association but it has not attempted through public meetings, etc., to set out to explain the regulations which will govern all cattle producers in Manitoba. In conclusion, the National Farmers Union challenges the Manitoba Government to prove that the majority of the beef producers in Manitoba do want this legislation. MR. CHAIRMA N: Thank you, Ms. Skelton. Will you submit to questions from members of the comm ittee? MS. SKELTON: Yes, I wi ll. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Driedger. MR. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would be in order for clarification for the members of the comm ittee if the people who make submissions whether they would identify what their position is in the beef industry in terms of how many cattle they own and how much land they operate, this type of thing. I think it would maybe help committee members to justify some of the statements that are made. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you raising that as a point of order or are you simply directing a question to the ... MR. DRIEDGER: I'm asking that as a question. MS.

SKEL TON: Do you want me to answer your question or do you want the comm ittee to decide? MR. DRIEDGER: I'd like to direct question to yourself , please. MS. SKELTON: To me? MR. DRIEDGER: Yes. MS. SKEL TON: Okay. I'll answer that I am the Region 5 Co-ordinator of the National Farmers Union and that organization is a national organization of farmers, of all commodit ies. We speak for all commodi ties throughout Canada for the members of the Union, so any person who is a member of the Union, speaks on any commodity. 1 am a farmer; 1 do not have cattle.

You may think that this does not allow me to speak on this issue, but I, as a farmer, produce grain, and being a grain producer that interwinds me with the problem of the beef industry, because the beef industry cannot be without the grain industry, and as a consumer, without being a farmer, let alone a beef producer, I have an interest in this. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey. MR. DOWNEY: Yes, you represent the organization. I have two questions. First, what is the amount of membership of the organization that you represent? Ms. SKEL TON: National or provincial? 4

IIR. DOWNEY: Both. Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 lis. SKEL TON: National, over 8,000; provincial, 800, family farm units. IIR. DOWNEY: Second question. You made the statement that the Al berta Cattle Commission had �mbarrassed the Alberta Government. Is that why they have such a large majority in the Alberta .egislative Assembly? ills. SKEL TON: What do you mean, a large majority? III R. DOWNEY: The Conservative Government have such a large majority in the Al berta Legislative �ssembly. Is that being em barrassed by the legislation? Ms.

SKEL TON: No, no, that isn't the point was trying to make, Mr. Downey. The point I was trying to make was that this was a government egislated organization in Al berta, as would be the one in Manitoba, and that this organization is 1ow going against a principle that the Alberta Government believes in, and that being the crow ·ates, or I presume they believe in the crow rates. And the same thing could happen in the Manitoba ;ituation with such legislation going into force. VIR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Mr. Enns. VIR.

ENNS: Your brief states on Item 10 , that the ... and I take it that is one of the major objections :hat when a government legislates the formation of an organization without asking those concerned, t perverts freedom of choice, and your objection to Bill 25 at this time, is that an organization s being formed of certain producers without their being asked in a formal way by vote or plebiscite :heir opinion about it. Is that a position that the Farmers Union is putting forward? VIS.

SKELETON: The Farmers Union in this case is against this because this is the formation of :t commodity group and there is no need for such an association to be formed through a government egislation. This can be done by any organization going out and gathering membership. There is 10 need for this. MR. ENNS: The National Farmers Union has no objecti on, however, if producer boards are otherwise set up within the farm community without a vote being held. MS. SKEL TON: Well in orderly marketing we are talking about a different thing than we are in this kind of association. There is a difference there. MR.

ENNS: Well that of course is a little difficult for us, at least some of the commit tee members do understand, but formation of the Hog Marketing Board, formation of the Milk Producers Board, both of these boards were formed in the last relatively short number of years without any reference to the producers involved. But that didn't disturb the National Farmers Union organization as such? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Einarson. MR. EINARSON: Ms. Skelton, you say that you are not a producer of beef? MS. SKEL TON: No, I am not. MR. EINARSON: And you are a farmer? MS. SKELTON: Yes. MR.

EINARSON: So therefore you are speaiking on behalf of an organization, namely the National Farmers Union. MS. SKEL TON: Yes. MR. EINARSON: You also are concerned about the freedom that you feel that you are losing? How do you interpret the Act as losing your freedom if, on one hand, that you pay whatever'the Associa tion, as I understand it, suggests - 25 cents per head or whatever - if you don't agree, if you are allowed to make application to have that money refunded. Is that what you call losing your freedom?

Standing Committee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 MS. SKEL TON: That's not the principle. The principle in losing your freedom is, to begin with, in it being legislated by the government, by the government introducing this, that's were the freedom is lost. MR. EINARSON: Are you speaking on behalf of the beef producers of this province and do 1 understand you to say that you don't want to see the government involv ed in any way, shape or form.? Do you agree that government should not be involved in the beef producing business? MS. SKEL TON: That depends.

You look like you are going to very involved in the beef producing business but the thing is what your end goals are. Now setting up a commodity group such as this in Bill 25 is going to do in no way like the purpose states it should do, improve the economic well-being of the cattle industry in Manitoba. lt can't possibly do that. lt hasn't done it in any of the other provinces that have these check-offs. MR. EINARSON: Well as I understand, you are going to be allowed to establish an association. You talked about the referendum that was held over a year ago?. MS. SKEL TON: No, I didn't talk about that. MR.

EINARSON: Well you mentioned . . . MS. SKEL TON: That was four years ago. That was a beef check off referendum. MR. EINARSON: Yes, I'm sorry, right. lt has also been mentioned about a referendum that was held just over a year ago or thereabouts. Do you agree with what the referendum contained, whether you agree with the marketing board or not? MS. SKEL TON: Hm'mmm. MR. EINARSON: Then therefore you don't agree with many producers of beef in this province that they are not interested in a marketing board? MS. SKEL TON: Okay.

There's a difference between this and the vote that was held a year ago and the vote that was held four years ago. There is no vote in this Act. There is no referendum. There is no choice of the people. You don't know if you have the majority of the producers. MR. EINARSON: Then I ask you, Ms.

Skelton, if you are allowed through an association to elect boards of directors to operate this associatio n, do I understand you to say that you don't feel that you have the freedom of electing someone, some farmer, on that board to express the wishes and probably carry out the decisions that you feel should be carried out through this association? MS. SKEL TON: Okay.

In Al berta - that was the example I was getting to in paragraph 9 - in Alberta they legislated through such a bill, not the same, but they legislated, through the same idea, they told the people they were going to have this commodity organization and then when it came to the time to elect the delegates for the board, only 4 percent of those people voted. The point is, unless the people have the choice to work in the planning and the structuring of the organization, in working and forming something like this themselves, they won't participate. MR.

EINARSON: I fail to understand your comments when you say that they won't have the opportunity to participate. If it's only 4 percent in Alberta that exercised their prerogative, whose fault is that? MS. SKEL TON: That was their choice. The fault is the interest wasn't in it, so why are you legislating it? The same thing would happen here in Manitoba when the delegates are elected. The interest won't be there because those people haven't had the choice in drawing up something they really want.

Put this to the vote, put it to a refer endum, ask the people, then the majority rules, but you won't do that because you know you wouldn't win. MR. EINARSON: Are you then telling me, Ms. Skelton, that farmers in the beef business in the Province of Manitoba over the past number of years have not been asking for such legislation to give them an opportunity to establish an association to be able to do things for themselves. 6

Standing Committee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 4S. SKEL TON: Certainly there have been farmers who have been asking but there also have been armers who have been asking for such a thing as a national meat authority. -'R. EINARSON: Ms. Skelton, I would like to ask you, do you believe in supply management of he commodity we are talking about ... ? ill S. SKEL TON: Would you explain to me what you feel is supply management? III R. EINARSON: No, I am asking you, I am questioning. . . ill S. SKEL TON: There are different meanings. I have to have the answer to the meaning before will answer that. !II R.

EINARSON: In other words, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Skelton is refusing to answer my question Nhen I ... MS. SKEL TON: No, I am asking you to clarify the point. MR. EINARSON: Supply management, it is simple terms. MS. SKEL TON: Clarify what you mean by supply management, then I will answer you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to question the Farm Union on why they are prepared to accept a bill that would bring into being a farm organization even if there was a referendum and a majority of people wanted it?

The reason I ask that is that it is obvious that in some instances a group of people who have a particular vested interest in something may even unanimously want it but in getting what they want they deny basic fundamental freedoms to other sectors in society since it becomes a law of the land. Why would you want to tread on such dangerous ground, Madam? MS. SKEL TON: If I get your question right, you are asking me why would we accept a majority -y es? MR. USKIW: Yes. MS. SKEL TON: Because in a democracy the rule of the majority should rule, or am I not answering what you want to know. MR. USKIW: No.

Let me pursue it further then. MS. SKEL TON: Oh, definitely. If the majority were to say yes for this bill, I would be very afraid because the powers that this bill has in it are unreal. MR. USKIW: That is the very point that I am getting at then. Are you making a distinction between a vote asking for the right to establish an association and this particular piece of legislation that is before us now? Are you making a distinction between asking that a vote be held for the purposes of establishing an association and the bill that is before you?

In other words, the powers in this bill which are government powers delegated to a private club which no other organization has, nor should they have, would you want that embodied in the powers of an association even if they had a majority? That's the point. MS. SKEL TON: No, I would not. MR. USKIW: The second question I then ask you is, whether or not it makes sense to you that an association, if it is formed pursuant to the passage of this bill - that is the association decisions - should not be appealable to a public authority as is provided in this bill. MS.

SKEL TON: That would be asking for amendments in this bill and I want this bill opposed. But, yes, definitely it's ridiculous to have such powers and no appeal system. 7

Standing Committee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 MR. USKIW: So you are suggesting then that you are opposed to the principle of the bill in itsel since it is a bill that introduces into being an association not by choice but by the law of the lane as opposed to the contents of the bill itself? MS. SKEL TON: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam. MR. ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Skelton, in your comments to the Member for Rock Lake you mentioned that you did not want to lose your freedom of choice to belong to whatever association that you so desire.

Do you have this opinion because the government is introducing Bill No. 25 which will set up another association which compels you to belong or to be out. Is it because you feel - I know that you do speak for many livestock producers who are NFU members - is it because, if you have to come to government for any reason, that you would not be recognized then as an association representing cattle producers? Is that why you feel that your freedoms would be lost? Is that one of the reasons?! MS. SKELTON: Yes. That's what I was speaking about when I said a private organization is being formed, a private organization.

In a letter from Mr. Church, a statement was made in that this would be the only organization to recognize the beef producers in Manitoba, and the only way such an organization can possibly be set up democratically is if the people in that organization go out and get that kind of support, then it's democratic. The way it is being now, it is legislated, everyone is in the plan whether they want to be or not. That's an easy way to get a majority. MR. ADAM: Mr.

Chairman, then you feel that if this bill passes and becomes law, that in the future your organization may not be recog nized as speaking for your members, your producers, either your association or any future association, any group of farmers who may wish to band together to form an association to represent their own views? That is the point you are . . . ? MS. SKEL TON: In the area of livestock, yes. MR.

ADAM: I was going to ask you the very same question that the Member for Lac du Bonnet asked in regard to your comments in your brief, in that you said that if the majority of the producers voted for this bill, that you would go along with it. I certainly want to advise you, Ms. Skelton, that 1 would have great difficulty in supporting this legislation regardless if 10 0 percent of the farmers supported it. 1 know that I am one of the farmers also and it would not have 10 0 percent. 1 am surprised that the Minister of Agriculture has asked you for your membership.

As I recall, in Agriculture Committee, I requested the Minister to provide information on the Manitoba Beef Growers and the Manitoba Cow-Calf Association and he undertook to provide that information but we are still waiting. We haven't received it yet although he undertook to provide it. MS. SKEL TON: Well, I would just make a comment that the Minister of Agriculture had asked us on several occasions before what our membership was but I guess he must have a short memory. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Mr. Uruski. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Ms.

Skelton, are you aware that this piece of legislation will require all or any persons con nected with the cattle industry to supply whatever information this association desires or be subject to prosecution without any recourse to the courts? MS. SKEL TON: Yes, that's in 7(1) . MR. URUSKI: Do you feel that many of the associated industries, especially the truckers and the recorders, are aware of this type of provision? MS. SKEL TON: No, they are not aware, and neither are the majority of the producers of Manitoba aware of this. This is why I have said that nothing has been said to publicize this.

Certainly there have been blurps on the television set talking about Bill 25 and this sort of thing, but other than that, nothing, to go out into the country and explain to beef producers what this bill is all about. MR. URUSKI: Thank you. 8

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 ,R. CHAIRMAN: No further questions? If there are none, thank you very much, Ms. Skelton. The next brief is to be presented by Margaret Hayward, Sinclair. I would also like to point out :> people in the audience that it is a hot night and it is quite permissible to remove jackets and ,es. Beyond that, the choic e is yours. Mrs. Hayward. liS. MARGARET HAYWARD: Thank you for giving me this opportunity to present my views on !ill 25. As a National Farmers Union member, a grain producer and a consumer, I feel I have a :take in Bill 25.

As an NFU member, I have learned the importance of maintaining people's democratic ights. As a grain producer, I have learned that beef and grain producers are jointly dependent on me another. As a consumer, I must buy food. With all the natural resources available in Canada, question why so much of our food is imported. The beef industry is a financial burden on the armers because of the instability of the marketplace. To honour people's democratic rights, a eferendum must be held. The wishes of the majority should be respected.

When one commodity group is singled out for special attention, as is done when the government >roposes establishing such a group as the cattle producers association, the government pits the >eef producer against the grain producer instead of creating policies to further the understanding >f the need to work together. Whatever our commodity, we are in the agriculture to produce food o feed people, and the government should not be a party to legislation which will help destroy :he unity of the farmers and Canadians alike.

I feel that the economic well-being of the cattle and beef industry in Manitoba needs to be mproved, but nowhere in Bill 25 is this acco mplished. In conclusion, the implementing of this Act in this manner is totally undemocratic, so therefore ,t must be withdrawn. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Hayward. Will you submit to questions from members of the committee? MS. HAYWARD: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Yes, I am again going to pursue the same question that I asked the previous speaker, Mr.

Chairman, and that is that you dwell on the need for a referendum and my question is, if there was a referendum and it carried, do you believe that such an association should have the powers contained in this bill, without appeal to the government? MS. HAYWARD: No, I do not. MR. USKIW: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Mr. Einarson. MR. EINARSON: Mr. Chairman, for the record, you say you are a farmer? MS. HAYWARD: Definitely. MR. EINARSON: A grain producer? MS. HAYWARD: Yes. MR. EINARSON: But you are not a producer of beef? MS. HAYWARD: No. MR. EINARSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Hayward. George Higgs, Bowsman (absent), Ted Wilson, Durban (absent), Ken Sigurdson, Swan River. MR. KEN SIGURDSON: Mr. Chairman, I would first like to say that I am a member of the National Farmers Union. I participated in the Canadian Agriculture Movement. I'm a member of the Manitoba 9

Standing Committee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 Maine Anjou Assoc iation, the Canadian Maine Anjou Association and I guess I am a member 1 the Farm Bureau, I don't really know. But anyway -(I nterjection) - Yes, right. But the problel with the Maine Anjou Associat ion and the Farm Bureau, they never ask my opinion on anythin and yet they still claim to represent me, and this is the basic problem with thes organizations. I would like to present this brief now. In making presentation to the Agriculture Committee, would first like to deal with the beef checkoff in general.

In telephone conversations with MLA they stated that the government would be bringing in the checko ff because they had a mandat to govern. However cattle producers understand that part of the mandate to govern was in th election platform. At no time during the election campaign did cattle producers hear of a beE checkoff, rather the election promises to farmers was that of no interference, eliminate governmer waste, cut taxes and free Manitoba.

This legislation breaks all of these promises to the farmer as Bill 25 will interfere with the cattle producers' business and will create another tax on farmer and is an exercise in government waste and could infringe on the freedoms of all cattl producers. Also a mandate was set in a 19 74 vote on a beef checkoff at which time the checkoff was rejecte' by a vote of 3,245 against to 2,451 in favour, and a grain checkoff was rejected less than fou years ago. Cattle producers would reject this beef checkoff if they were given their democratic right to a referendum on the issue.

If there is a pressing need for this checko ff it certainly isn't evidenced from actual cattle producers Rather, I believe, the push for the association is coming from the large feedlots and a few registere1 cattle producers. These represent less than 3 percent of the cattle producers in Manitoba. Thes1 same people could fund their own organizations if they supported their convictions strongly enough Funding by other producers is typical of these feedlot men who have lived off the grain producen and the cow-calf operator and now desires an association to maintain this tradition.

Another problem with the special commodity group is that by its special commodity nature, i has little concern of other agricultur e producers. A good example of this is the Alberta CattlE Commission which has come out against Crowsnest freight rates in Alberta. This has caused a grea deal of consternation among the Al berta farmers who realize organizations should work for thE betterment of all agriculture. Also the relevance of the Al berta Cattle Commission is that less thar 2,000 of approximately 35,0 00 Alberta producers voted for the elected members of the Alberta CattlE Commission.

The complete indifference to the ACC clearly shows it is of little use or benefit to Albert� producers. All major farm organizations in Alberta are questioning the very existence of the ACC and are thinking of a plebiscite to remove this monstrosity from the agricultural scene. lt seems hard to understand why Manitoba is proposing this legislation when it has done nothin� meaningful for the producers in other provinces. Someone has stated that cattle producers have been asking for this checko ff for the past 20 years.

All I can say is that for the last 20 years justice. sanity and freedom have prevailed in Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Will you submit to questions from the Agriculture Committee. Mr. Driedger. MR. DRIEDGER: Are you a cow-calf operator? MR. SIGURDSON: I feed my own cattle out, yes. MR. DRIEDGER: How many head do you run? MR. SIGURDSON: I have about 80 head right now. MR. DRIEDGER: How many do you market in one year? MR. SIGURDSON: 1 have been marketing approximately 50 in the past years and now I am down to around 20 head because of the economic conditfons of the cattle industry. MR.

DRIEDGER: What amount would you be faced with in terms of a levy if this bill came through? MR. SIGURDSON: Pardon. MR. DRIEDGER: What would your levy be in terms of the amount of cattle that you roughly market in one year? 10

Standing Committee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 III R. SIGURDSON: My levy would probably be very small. I spent more fighting the checkoff than he levy will ever collect from me in the rest of my life. lt's the principle of freedom we are fighting or. III R. DRIEDGER: Thank you. III R. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. III R. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, how many meers are there in the breed association that you belong :o? III R.: I don't know. I believe there is roughly - I really can't SIGU RDSON/ say, Mr. Uskiw. III R. USKIW: Well is it a thousand, or is it in the hundreds or is it in the tens or ... ? ltftR.

SIGURDSON: lt would be in the hundreds. MR. USKIW: lt would be in the hundreds. And do you know whether or not that association has �anvassed the opinions of its membership on this bill? MR. SIGURDSON: No, they have not. This is an executive decision as far as to my knowledge. MR. USKIW: You talked about the possibility of a referendum e defeat ing such a proposal. If a referendum was to carry, do you believe that such an association created by law should have the powers that are now contained in Bill 25 or should there be an appeal provision? MR. SIGURDSON: Yes.

I don't agree with the legislation at all but I can't see any producer sanely favouring this type of legislation that would require him to submit records and information to an association that he would so strongly disagree with. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Mr. Adam. MR. ADAM: I understand, Mr. Sigur dson, that there was a meeting at Swan River on this particular proposal and was there support shown at that meeting? MR. SIGURDSON: There was one person who vocally supported it at the meeting and we later passed around a petition asking for a vote on the referndum.

We didn't know Bill 25 and its contents at that time but we asked for a referendum on a checkoff and 70 percent wanted a vote on the checkoff. I am sure nobody there would possibly support Bill 25. MR. ADAM: How many were at that meeting, Mr. Sigur dson? MR. SIGURDSON: There was around 30. MR. ADAM: Thirty, eh. Was the MLA for Swan River at that meeting? MR. SIGURDSON: Right. MR. ADAM: Yes. That's why I asked because the Meer for Swan River indicated in the House, he is on record as saying that he hadn't met anybody who was opposed to the checkoff in Swan River and that's why I am just asking those questions. MR.

SIGURDSON: Yes, well you know how these politicians get carried away. MR. ADAM: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Mr. Downey. MR. DOWNEY: Do 1 understand, are you opposed to the organization? MR. SIGURDSON: 1 am opposed to everything in Bill 25. I was going to introduce an amendment that was a deletion of everything after the first word .. 11

Standing Committee On Agric ulture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Galbraith. MR. GALBRAITH: Mr. Sigurdson, are you opposed to an association that is designated to try t advertise and promote your own industry? MR. SIGURDSON: Yes, we don't control the price of our own products so whywe should advertis and promote it when we can't price it. MR. GALBRAITH: In other words, you really don't care whether your product is promoted at a and you don't care to try to help and promote it. MR. SIGURDSON: What has it done for producers in other provinces, that's what I would like t ask you. MR.

GALBRAITH: Has it done them any harm? How can you weigh this? MR. SIGURDSON: Well sure it has done them harm. Most producers produce grain as well as bee and if they are going to come out against Crowsnest rates like they have done in Alberta, the grou1 out there isn't representative of farmers, it is only representative of 2,000 farmers and they an coming out against Crowsnest rates. MR. GALBRAITH: You don't care to form an association that is going to try and encourage researcl towards preventing diseases in cattle? MR. SIGURDSON: Isn't this the government's responsibility? MR.

GALBRAITH: In other words, you as a cattleman don't care to try to promote research? MR. SIGURDSON: Well I feel that we will probably be letting the government off the hook fo research when we start doing it ou rselves, eh? MR. GALBRAITH: I don't agree with you there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? If there are none, thank you, Mr. Sigurdson. The next name is Jim Chegwin. Is Jim Chegwin present? -(Interjection)- He is not present� Bruce Medd, accompanied by Mac Lelond. They are not here. Brad McDonald. MR.

McDONALD: My name is Brad McDonald, Strathclair, National Director, National Farmen Union, Secretary Strathclair Consumers Co-Op, Committeeman Manitoba Pool Elevators, membe1 of Canadian Seed Growers, hog producer, beef producer, grain producer, seed grower. farmer-at-large, Vice-President, J. McDonald and Sons, partner, McDonald Farms. Recommendations to the Law Amendments Committee re Bill 25, The Cattle Producers Association Act. To begin with, I refer to

Section 2, the purpose of the proposed act, to provide for the establishment and financing of an organization to initiate, support and conduct programs for stimulating, increasing and improving the economic well-being of the cattle and beef industry in Manitoba by developing through marketing methods, grading standards, quality standards, research and educational programs. 1 now refer to clause (f), subsection 6(1), subject to the such acts as it deems necessary and advisable to enable it to administer the Act effectively and to promote and assist producers in the production and marketing of cattle in Manitoba. 1 now refer to subsection 6(2): The association shall not engage in the production, sale, marketing and processing of cattle on its own behalf or exercise any of its powers in a manner cont rary to this Act or the administration by-law. 1 refer to this subsection 6(2) because it is a contradiction of the two previous parts mentioned and its inclusion means that the proposed Act will not be able to meet its objectiv es in any meaningful way.

This is 19 78, and we live in an organized society. The private planning system effectively controls the food processing and retailing system, not to mention many of the other important sectors which affect our lives. We know that beef producers do not have effective bargaining power, the bargaining power necessary to provide an income equitable to other sectors in our society. The marketing system at the producer level can be described as antiquated at best, designed to dispose of cattle rather than market them. 12

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 Federal and provincial enquiries have outlined the discrimination in prices received by producers, 1arket rating, lack of real competition at the packer and retail level. We have a situation where 1e price to the producer changes from sale to sale while wholesale and retail prices are set weekly. he last four years, beef producers were bankru pted by inadequate returns. Canada Packers' ve-year average return on equity was 12.4 percent - this from the Financial Post.

Su bsection 6(2) will ensure that all these wonderful things will remain. lt ensures the maintenance f the status quo. lt means the rural economy will not receive its share of the nation's wealth. For government which is responsible for the financial health of a province to propose legislation which 1aintains our present inadequate system suggests they're either gutless or incompetent to deal with 1e problems in our society. lt is my recommendation that subsection 6(2) be removed from the :roposed Act. Having discussed what the proposed Act can't do, I will draw to your attention what the Act till probably do.

Choosing not to deal with the real powers in our society, organizations such as he one proposed usually pick on someone they can handle to solve their problems. I point to the llberta Cattle Commission and its constant harassment of grain producers. "The Crow must go!" 1nd "On with the Wheat Board "' they cry. " If you can't get grain producers in the same mire we 1re in, we can all be miserable together!" Three years since its inception, Alberta farmers are now beginning to understand the nature of he monster in their midst. lt's nothing short of horrendous to propose

an Act which gives one part ,f a com munity power, while not protecting the other parts from being savaged by that power. The ,roposed legislation could never be acceptable to any rational person unless safeguards are added o protect all farmers from harassment. In conclusion, I'd like to suggest the name of the proposed organization be changed to The Two-Bit )rganization. lt's nature is two-bit, and given the powers, it's accomplishments will be two-bit. lttR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. McDonald. Will you submit to questions from members of the �ommittee? lttR. McDONALD: I will. lttR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

McK enzie. lttR. McKENZIE: 1 heard you raise the words "gutless" and "inc ompetent." Are you talking about he cattle industry or government? "'R. McDONALD: I referred to any government. For a government which is responsible for the 'inancial health of a province, the proposed legislation which maintains our present inadequate system ;uggests they are either gutless or incompetent. IJIR. McKENZIE: Mr. McDonald, are you familiar with the legislation that's just been passed in Saskatchewan? MR. McDONALD: Somewhat. MR.

McKENZIE: Are you prepared to accept that the Minister shall look after the funds that have been checked off from the Cattlemen's Association - the government? MR. McDONALD: What I am aware of is that . . . MR. McKENZIE: Well, answer my question. Are you yes or no? MR. McDONALD: Repeat the question. MR. McKENZIE: Are you satisfied with the legislation which has just been recently passed in Saskatche wan where the checkoff from the Cattlemen's Associa tion, that those funds will flow into the Minister of Agriculture's office? MR. McDONALD: Yes. MR. McKENZIE: You are satisfied with that? Then you're ... MR.

McDONALD: Farm members in Saskatchewan have fought for several years for the complete repeal of that Act. They are not satisfied with the Act at all. 13

Standing Committee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 MR. McKENZIE: I'm just asking you, Sir, are you for state control of the cattle industry? Becau once that ... MR. McDONALD: I'll tell you what I am for, and that is sufficient bargaining power to provide ' income equitable to other sectors in our society. Now, we have tried various means to obta these. MR. McKENZIIE: Well, I'm just asking you a polite ... MR. McDONALD: . . . And if that means given the bargaining power the producers can get und The Natural Products Marketing Act, then so be it. MR. McKENZIE: Well, Mr.

McDonald, I'm only wondering, cattle producers like yourself and othe across the province - and this is what the Com mittee is here for and this is why the hearin! are here - are you, as I read from your brief here, opposed to the legislation that's before u� Now you say you would prefer a state control system where the checkoffs will flow into the offic of the Minister of Agriculture sitting here on my left. MR. McDONALD: The Natural Products Marketing Act is a statute of this province responsible 1 the people of this province. MR. McKENZIE: I have no more questions, Sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam. MR.

A.R. (Pete) ADAM: Yes, Mr. McDonald, is it? You passed reference on what was happenin in Alberta insofar as the checkoff there. Are you aware that the 19 76 statistics put the Al berta farme1 at the poverty level, as far as income was concerned? That the average income in Alb erta for farme1 there with the beef checko ff is between $10, 000 and $1 5,000 a year? MR. McDONALD: Yes, I'm aware of that. MR. ADAM: So then you would say that the beef checkoff there hasn't performed miracles fc the Al berta producers? MR.

McDONALD: Well, let's look at it in terms of common sense, because that's usually the term I deal with. In terms of dealing with the power of society, all this legislation at the very best coul do is talk. Now, since I wasn't very big, farmers have been talking about their inequitable positio in our society, that they should get a better deal. Now we know from the nu merous studies th8 all this thing can do is talk, and talk isn't going to change a damn thing. If the Packers and Safewa were going to be benevolent, they would have been benevolent a long time ago. MR. ADAM: Mr.

Chairman, do you have any information on what is being spent by the Albert Livestock Commission - or whatever they call it - on marketing? How much of their expenditur· - or do you have that information? MR. McDONALD: No, I don't have that information right handy. MR. ADAM: Well, perhaps it would be unfair for me to comment on that, then. The checkoff fan raises between $500,000 and $600,000 a year, and of that amount only $8, 500 goes to develoj marketing for livestock. The rest of it goes I don't know where. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The witness before us has indicated a total objection to Bill 25 for reasons stated, but in his comments has indicated that he favours a more meaningful structure I believe he touched on the facility of the Natural Products Marketing Act as being a more meaningfu structure that could change the situation in the marketplace favourable to the producer. I want tc ask him, since that opportunity was available to the beef producers only a year ago by way of � referendum, what he sees as a solution to that very problem, since that's what he believes is thE ultimate answer.

How are the producers to become knowledgeable, or what would change thE producers' opinion with respect to that question? Or why did the vote not carry, in yoUI 14

Standing Committee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 19 78 IR. McDONALD: Why did the vote not carry? I suppose because the legislation on a provincial �vel, while it deals with the ability of a provincial agency to deal with price quality between producers - in other words, you receive the same price for the same quality of product on the same day - it does not have the power to effectively raise the price quantity, and the price quantity is as nportant to producers as any thing.

I suppose, in reflection on the Act last year, I was not happy 1at the proposed plan went far enough, that it could have gone farther in dealing with price uality. On the other hand, we had one of the most terrific scare campaigns. Just, and it's a general omment that isn't mentioned in my submission, but

Section 7(1) of the Act that deals with books, ecords, imposing fees payable to it, I found with some interest that the producer organizations tere quoting this Act last year in their campaign material and threw this out as a red herring as omething for the beef producers in Manitoba to be afraid of. IIR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, to pursue that, what is the int erest of the group that launched the ampaign, to either confuse or to educate, whichever way you want to take it, the farmers against he proposal that was put to them a year ago? What was motivating that particular group of people? Vho are they?

What is their status in the industry, in your opinion? IIR. McDONALD: From my own experience, and last year I served as a member of the Joint .ivestock Advisory Committee and was able to travel over the western side of the province, I found he people who were defending the system most were the feedlot operators. As a person who grows 1is own grain and feeds it to his own livestock, the price is what is important to me because that's vhat determines my return per acre.

Feedlot operators, if they can get either cheap calves or cheap 1rain, they can maintain their margin, and what they were determined in was in maintaining a system n which they had flexibility. They were more concerned with the margin on each turn-around and naintaining that. Not all that similar to the packer who is between the producer and the retailer md looks on with disfavour any action at the producer level which might in terfere with his nargin. VIR. USKIW: Well, Mr.

Chairman, to pursue that further, the Advisory Committee of a year ago ·ecommended that we proceed towards the establishment of a marketing authority - marketing )Oard, to be precise - that would have all the powers contained in the Natural Products Marketing ll.ct and recommended by the inquiry commission, once that board was elected. How do you explain the fact that some of the same people who signed that recommendation Nere subsequently involved in a campaign against the proposal when it was put to the people of 111 anitoba? ""'R. McDONALD: I can't answer that, Mr.

Uskiw, because I wasn't one of those eight members Nho signed that part of the proposal. ""'R. USKIW: Well, I'm sure you can't answer for those particular individuals, but what is your assessment as to the reason for that turn-about that took place a year ago on the part of those members or their group?! MR. McDONALD: Well, it was my feeling at that time that they were interested in bringing in just an organization which would not have any power, much similar to the proposition which is before us today.

When it appeared that legislation might be coming forward with some power, they just took the negative position. MR. USKWI: No, but, Mr. Chairman, the very recommendations that they presented to myself, then in charge of the department, had all the powers of the Natural Products Marketing Act and all of the recommendations built in of the inquiry commission. The only question mark was that those powers would not be utilized in full until there was an elected board, and of course the government of that day chose to move towards the election of a board from Day One of the operation of that agency.

Therefore, given that the government was willing to comply with that provision that there would be no marketing powers until a board was elected, why would then anyone who was a signatory to that recommendation oppose that particular referendum or the proposal in the referendum? MR. McDONALD: 1 quite honestly suggest that if Charlie Mayer or any other member shows up to present at this hearing, that you ask him why they changed their position.

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 MR. USKIW: My last and standard question: If this particular bill was submitted to the produce1 and a majority of producers wanted this kind of an association, do you think the government ougl to proceed with the establishment of it and, if so, in its present form, or should there be provisic for appeal to the Government of Manitoba? MR. McDONALD: I missed the first part of your question. MR. USKIW: All right, I will repeat it.

If this measure was referred to the producers for a decisio by way of a referendum and the vote carried, should that association have the powers containe in Bill 25? MR. McDONALD: If that is what they are voting on. MR. USKIW: Do you believe that any private organization should have the powers contained Bill 25 without recourse or appeal? MR. McDONALD: No, and I mentioned that in the latter part of my submission. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. McDonald, do you support the concept of going to the public referendur on this bill? MR.

McDONALD: You know, an argument can be made that you were elected to govern, but th fact is, that the past history regarding these marketing proposals, they were in two previous one� and they've both gone to the producers. In terms of consistency, you know, it's inconsistent tha a third one would not. MR. McKENZIE: Do you believe, would you somehow help us MLAs, there's 57 of us here, w< have 70 bills roughly, on the Orders of the Day, that we should go to the people on all bills tha come before the Legislature? MR.

McDONALD: No, I did not say this, I said, but in regard to beef legislation to be consisten1 there has been two previous referendums, and to be fair, you know, if you're going to keep i consistent with the previous two we should have another one. But, in terms of legislation in general no, you're elected to govern. MR. McKENZIE: Well, I'm a rural member, why should beef have a special status? MR. McDONALD: I suppose you could ask that of the previous Minister of Agriculture. MR. McKENZIE: A referendum on beef. MR. McDONALD: Well, okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order please. Could we have one speaker at a time? Mr.

McKenzie please. MR. McKENZIE: Well, 1 can debate with the other members at a later date, Mr. Chairman, on this matter. 1 see, Mr. Chairman, and to Mr. McDonald, that the word National Products Marketing Ac1 is now in the debate. Do you support that concept? MR. McDONALD: Natural Products Marketing Act? MR. McKENZIE: The Natural. I apologize if I said National; I mean Natural Marketing. Do you suppor1 that concept for the cattle industry? MR. McDONALD: lt's given producers more bargaining power than any other method we've come up with to ·date. MR.

McKENZIE: Would you suggest then that there's no need for Bill 25 today? MR. McDONALD: Would I suggest that? 16

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 ,R. McKENZIE: Yes. ,R. McDONALD: That would be correct. ,R. McKENZIE: Would you then explain it to me, that is it possible that there should be some rehicle, such as is going on in other jurisdictions of the province where some private group, dairymen, :att lemen, farmers, and various grain producers, breeders, should have their own private >rganizations? IIIR. McDONALD: Are you referring to a marketing organization, or a political organization? IIIR. McKENZIE: I beg your pardon? III R.

McDONALD: Are you referring to a marketing organization, or a political organization? III R. McKENZIE: No, I'm talking about the Limousin, the Hereford breeders, the seed growers, the iarious farm groups. Do they have a right to form an organization by themselves, away from �overnment? MR. McDONALD: That's right. MR. McKENZIE: Thank you, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam. Could you speak into the microphone? MR. ADAM: Yes, I am. I wanted to ask you if you have had an opportunity to attend any meetings in reference to this bill? MR. McDONALD: Not in reference to this bill, Pete. MR.

ADAM: Have you met with any other farmers to talk about a beef checkoff at all? Have you attended any meetings? MR. McDONALD: Within our own organization, and we have consistently posed it as part of our policy, resolutions that have been passed at local district and regional levels. MR. ADAM: Yes, the reason I ask is that there was a meeting at Elkhorn, I believe. MR. McDONALD: No, I wasn't in attendance. MR. ADAM: You weren't at that meeting. There was apparently 43 farmers in attendance and they passed a unanimous decision opposing this particular. MR. McDONALD: That's correct. MR.

ADAM: You are aware of that, eh? MR. McDONALD: Yes. MR. ADAM: That that meeting took place? . . MR. McDONALD: Yes. , MR. ADAM: And am 1 correct in saying that there was a unanimous decision to oppose this check off ? MR. McDONALDi lt was unanimous, the position was unanimous that they request a plebiscite. MR .. ADAM: ·lt was unanimous that they have a referendum before such a bill be passed? ,MR. McDONALD: Yes. 17

Standing Committee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 MR. ADAM: Do you know who sponsored this meeting? MR. McDONALD: lt was just farmers in the local area. MR. ADAM: lt wasn't an NFU meeting, or a Canadian Agricultural Movement meeting or anythin of that nature, or Independent Producers? MR. McDONALD: Well, I wasn't at the meeting. MR. ADAM: As far as you know, it wasn't sponsored by the National Farmers Union anyway� MR. McDONALD: No, it wasn't sponsored by the National Farmers Union. MR. ADAM: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN!: Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKiW: Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose a hypothesis to our witness.

If this legislation passes and it appears likely to pass, do you believe that to be fair to all other groups in society, that w1 should pass

an Act for the establishment of a pork producers association, a chicken producer: association, one for the turkey producers association, one for the sheep producers association, on1 for the Federation of Labour giving them all the powers contained in Bill 25 -(In terjection)- Yes for all of the groups that we have in society, should they have the same kind of privileges as thi1 particular group is going to enjoy? MR. McDONALD: In plain simple, two wrongs aren't going to make a right. If this legislation i! put into place I'm just going to go out there and keep on beating it on the head, until it'! removed. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Any further questions from the Committee? MR. ADAM: Well, let me conclude by this then, am I reading you correctly, Sir, that you believE that in principle this is just bad legislation and should never be passed for any group? MR. McDONALD: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: If there are no further questions from members of the Committee, thank you very much, Mr. McDonald. Keith Proven, Basswood. Keith Proven. Bill Bajus. Brian Bajus. John Bucklaschuk. MRS. NICHOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm not John Bucklaschuk, but we worked jointly on this brie1 and I would like to present it. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Could you identify yourself, please? MRS. NICHOLSON: My name is Clarice Nicholson from Shoal Lake. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you proceed please? MRS. NICHOLSON: Thank you. In order to clarify my status in presenting this brief I would like to say that I am a partner on a mixed farm. We have a grain and cattle enterprise.

I am a eo-dir ector on the Agricultural Extension Advisory Service in the Shoal Lake ag rep area; I am a member of the Shoal Lake Agricultural Society, a member of Pool Elevators, a member of the Farm Bureau, and a member of the NFU, and I have been associated with agricultural problems all of my life. We would like to thank this Comm ittee for the opportunity to present this brief in opposition to Bill 25, The Cattle Producers Association Act. Firstly, we take extreme exception to the introduction of this bill without a referendum of bona fide cattle producers.

Last year there was a great outcry about the threat to freedom of the cattle producers when a marketing board was proposed after the following measures had been taken. The completion of the Enquiry Commission Report, which indicated the necessity for regulatory measures in livestock marketing and the Livestock Advisory Coittee which held a series of meetings 18

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 ill over Manitoba, at which producers were free to make presentations and indicate their wishes. rhere followed a referendum which determined the ultimate result of the question. Now we have 3ill 25 th rust upon us with no opportunity for genuine producers to be part of this decision. he :>ill in itself is a travesty of democracy. The definition of the word "producer" in the bill opens up the field to practically anyone you could name.

If you'll check back in your copy of the bill you Nill note that any banker can be a producer under the definition of this. From there on the total power of the association is thrown into the hands of 12 or 15 meers who will have absolute authority to dictate who will have a vote, who will pay the checkoff, how the money will be used, with whom the association will be allied, what regulations are to be made, on whom they will be enforced, if they will be enforced, where they will be enforced , all without any restrictions under the Natural Products Marketing Act.

Since the association has the power to enter into agreements with other organizations we may find ourselves allied with organizations such as The Canadian Cattlemen's Associa tion, which advocates the abolition of the Crows-Nest rates and also low feed grain prices so as to be able to continue to produce cheaper beef at the expense of the grain producer. The government, after forcing this Act on cattle producers, abdic ates all responsibility for the operation of the association.

Under the scope of regulations the unrestricted powers of the association allow it to discrimi nate against any individual group or locality. The government endorses the setting up of a spy network under Regulation 7(1) (

a) of the Act, and further deprives the individual of his or her freedom by delegating the authority to the association to prosecute persons under the Act.

Section 11 (3) virtually makes it impossible for amendments to the Admini stration By-law without the co-operation of the association in notification of all registered voters. If this Act is going to be rammed down our throats we insist that producers have a right to indicate at the time of sale if they wish to contribute to the checkoff, as has recently been brought into force in Saskatchewan. However, we still hope that democracy is not altogether dead in Manitoba, and this dictatorial Act will not be proclaimed in a free country. We would not want to lose our freedom of choice.

This is on behalf of farmers from Strathclair, Oakburn, Shoal Lake, and Elphins tone areas. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Nicholson. Will you submit to questions from members of the commi ttee? MRS. NICHOLSON: Yes. MR. McKENZIE: Mrs. Nicholson, and I know you have a very difficult position because it's not your brief, it's Mr. John Bucklas chuk's brief, but you listed off a long nuer of organizations at the start of your brief; do you belong to those organizations and speak on behalf of them or does John? MRS. NICHOLSON: I belong to those organizations, and therefore I justify my being here to represent ... MR.

McKENZIE: Yes. Are you speaking on behalf of them tonight? MRS. NICHOLSON: As much as they speak on behalf of me, many times. MR. McKENZIE: lt's got to be clarified. Are you speaking on behalf of Pool Elevators tonight? MRS. NICHO LSON: 1 am a member of Pool Elevators, and I am expressing my opinions as a member of Pool Elevators. MR. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mrs. Nicholson. On the bottom of the brief it's got "Subm itted by John Bucklaschuk, on behalf of farmers from Strathclair, Oakburn, Sh oal Lake, and Elphinstone." Is that all the farmers in that area that you are speaking on behalf? MRS. NICHOLSON: No. MR.

McKENZIE: How many? MRS. NICHOLSON: I believe that would be rather difficult to say, but in consultation with a number of farmers in that area they had asked that a brief be presented to this effect. 19

Standing Committee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 MR. McKENZIE: One hundred? Seventy-five? Fifty? MRS. NICHOLSON: I couldn't put a number on that. MR. McKENZIE: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN!: Are there any further questions? Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Yes, could you tell the comm ittee whether or not a good nuer of cattlemen and farmers generally, in your area, have become acquainted with the legislation? Are you aware as to the amoun of information that people have received to date on this piece of legislation?

And I raise that questior for this reason, perhaps I'll put it in context, that the government takes the position that the reasor they are introducing this bill is because it was a commitment that they gave during the electior campaig n. Could you indicate to me whether anyone in your group recalls such a commitment 01 whether this is part of the Conservative Party platform, during the election campaign? MRS. NICHOLSON: I can't recall any commitm ent to a checko ff for any particular group durin� the election campaig n. I seem to remember a good deal of shouting about freedom, freedom oi the individual.

I don't recall any specific group who were to get more freedom than any other group. MR. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, since I don't want to doubt the words of the Premier of this province, if he suggests to me that he has given a commitment, then I believe that he has given a commitment. To whom do you think he has given that commitment? MRS. NICHOLSON: Well, there were quite a few people who did a lot of shouting about freedom when the marketing bill was being put in, and I believe that they are getting their reward when this bill goes through. MR.

USKIW: Well, do you believe then that this commitment was given openly in the campaign, or behind closed doors somewhere in the closet? MRS. NICHOLSON: Well, your guess is as good as mine, but since the general public wasn't made aware of this promise in the open I guess you can draw your own conclusions. MR. USKIW: I then want to pursue my standard question, and that is that if this bill was referred to the farmers by way of a referendum, and if it carried, do you believe that any association should have the powers contained in Bill 25 without appeal to the government or the courts? MRS.

NICHOLSON: I don't believe that any group should have the powers that are given in here because the bill abdicates all responsibility . lt turns it completely over, gives legal responsibilities to this group. Now, I would like to know, would the government be prepared to do the same for every other commodity group, every other organization? We would have complete anarchy in this province if every little group had the same powers as this group is being given. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Driedger. MR. DRIEDGER: Mrs. Nicholson, how many head of cattle do you run on your farm? MRS. NICHOLSON: Usually about 70. MR.

DRIEDGER: Are you opposed to corps organization for the livestock industry? MRS. NICHOLSON: I beg your pardon? MR. DRIEDGER: Are you opposed to some kind of organization for the livestock industry? MRS. NICHOLSON: Not if it's funded by its meers. MR. DRIEDGER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Mr. Adam. 20

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 IIR. ADAM: Mrs. Nicholson, did you mention in your brief or prior to introducing your brief, that 'Ou are a member of the Farm Bureau? IIRS. NICHOLSON: Every person who is a member of Pool Elevators is a captive member of the :arm Bureau. ti!R. ADAM: Well, I'm a member of Grain Growers and Pool, as well, so indirectly I'm a meer of he Farm Bureau, I guess, a long ways back. III RS. NICHOLSON: Right. III R. ADAM: I understand the Minister, introducing Bill 25, ind icated that he had had a letter of 1upport from the Farm Bureau, in principle.

I don't know whether they support this bill the way t is set out, but at least I believe in principle that they did support a checkoff, and some sort of m association. Then that would not be your views, as an indirect member of the Farm Bureau you Nould not take that position, then, eh? You would not support it? IJIRS. NICHOLSON: The members were not consulted on that. MR. ADAM: No, I didn't think they were - I didn't think they were. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Galbraith. MR. GALBRAITH: Mrs. Nicholson, would you be in favour of a Marketing Board for cattle? MRS.

NICHOLSON: If it was set up under a Natural Products Marketing Act with preparation made to eventually work into a national meat authority, which would protect the consumer as well as the producer, because we are all consumers. MR. GALBRAITH: Okay, now we seem to be very concerned here tonight about freedom. Now a marketing board would greatly curtail our freedom of market outlets within the cattle industry, like farmer to drover sales and farmer sales at auction marts, farmer to packer sales.

How would you acco mmodate persons wishing to market their cattle on their own behalf without going through the marketing board, you are talking about . freedom? MRS. NICHOLSON: lt would give every farmer the same freedom, this bill does not. MR. GALBRAITH: He has the freedom to opt out of it if he wants to. MRS. NICHOLSON: If he opts out he has no further say in the cattle industry in Manitoba, because he will not be listened to unless he is a member of this so-called organization. MR. GALBRAITH: What does he have now? MRS.

NICHOLSON: He at least has the freedom that someone isn't looking over his shoulder and telling him what he can do. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw, on a point of order. MR. USKIW: Yes, on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Conservative members, on two or three occasions this evening, have said that there are things in this legislation that there is not. There is no provision for opting out in this bill.

The member is confusing the witness by trying to suggest to her that there's an opt out provision, so I think the members have to be fair to the witnesses, and not suggest to them that there is something in the legislation that is not contained therein. There is only provision that there could be a means for refunding fees, but not define how that will be done. That will be up to the association whom the government will have no control over and that is the extent of opting out.

The controls and regulations will still apply to all the cattlemen in this province, even if they opt out of the fees, so let's not confuse the witnesses. MR. CHAIRMAN: As I understand the Rules of Procedure that does not constitute a point of 21

Standing Committee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 19 78 MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, let me then draw to the attention of the comm ittee that some membe of this comm ittee are dishonest. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that a point of order? MR. USKI W: Take it for what it's worth. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to have . . MR. USKI W: Mr. Chairman, There should be some ethics in our procedures, that's all I'm sayin and meers should not confuse the witnesses by pointing out that there are things in legislation th• are not before this com mittee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie on a point of privilege. MR. McKENZIE: Mr.

Chairman, the honourable member has made a point that there are som meers of this comm ittee that are dishonest. I ask the meer to withdraw that remark. That is absolute unfounded. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I am very much prepared to withdraw that statement if the membE who alleged that there were these provisions in this bill withdraws that suggestion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Einarson. MR. EINARSONI: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to prolong this debate, but I'm speaking o the point or order, I think the comments coming from the Member for Lac du Bonnet, we shoul just consider where they came from. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Order please. I think the point of order has been confused with a point of debat and I think we should proceed with the questioning that was being carried on by Mr. Galbraitt Mr. Galbraith please. MRS. NICHOLSON: Mr. Chairman, may I add a further comment with regard to the refund of you checkoff. When you apply for a refund on your checkoff you nullify your opportunity to be a par of this association. In the meantime, while you are waiting for six months or probably a year fa your checkoff refund to come back and you are funding the organization, you are still not able t1 have any say in it. MR.

CHAIRMAN!: Mr. Hanuschak. MR. HANUSCHAK: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mrs. Nicholson whether she support: the concept that an organization, in no way responsible to the people of the Province of Manitoba should be granted the right to initiate legal action which could result in putting people in jail o fined? MRS. NICHOLSON: No, Mr. Chairman. This is what I had already indicated, that if we had 5( organizations in Manitoba with the powers that are proposed for this organiza tion, we would havE complete anarchy. MR. HANUSCHAK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey. MR.

DOWNEY: I would just like to ask Mrs. Nicholson the question, if she is familiar with the legislation passed by the last administration. I will clarify that it was a Private Member's Bill, bu1 it was

an Act to allow the Red River Community College to set up a student organization that i1 you are a student of the Red River Community College that you have to participate, you have to be a member of that association, and that they can set unlimited fees and there is no opt-out rights or no recourse. That student body have complete power to charge you any fees or dues that they so desire. MRS. NICHOLSON: I was not aware of that, but do they also have the power to prosecute individuals 22

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 r discrimi nate against individuals, areas, localities, groups of people, etc., which are the powers hich are given to this group. IR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hanuschak. IR. HANUSCHAK: Yes. Mr. Chairman, just simply on a point of order.

I simply want to re- emphasize 1e point that, as the Honourable Minister has indicated, that was a Private Member's Bill setting p a private member organization granting the members of that organization certain powers and do not believe that the Minister has indicated that that organization had the power to initiate action rhich would result in any person of the Province of Manitoba being sent to jail, as this bill oes. , MEMBER: lt certai nly has. lt is no different. lt uses the same right as the other Act. .R. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. �R. USKIW: Well, Mr.

Chairman, since we are now on Private Members' Bills, let me take this pportunity to clarify for those who are presenting briefs, that there is a world of difference between .uthority given to individuals and associations by Private Bills, which are different from government �gislation which have the force of the law of the land, the government and in fact the force of he power of the government. A private bill is something that is voted on voluntarily by a majority rf members of the Legislature without having any particular support from any particular political rarty. So there is quite a difference. IIR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey. IIR. DOWNEY: Would Mrs. Nicholson be prepared to support it if it had been a Priva te Member's �ill? "RS. NICHOLSON: Certainly not a bill with these powers. I wouldn't be prepared to support it mder any circums tances . .. R. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions by members of the Committee? There being none, hank you very much, Mrs. Nicholson, for your presentation. At this time I would like to apologize to all members and all members in the audience that I >erhaps have allowed somewhat wider latitude than would normally be considered proper in these >roceed ings.

I would like to caution all mem bers of the Committee to stick as closely as possible in your ·emarks and in your questions to Bill 25, and I think we will conduct our proceedings somewhat nore expeditiously. The next name on the list is Tony Riley, Strathclair. III R. RILEY: I am presenting this brief to you the Law Amendments Committee today as a member )f the Manitoba Pool, The Manitoba Beef Growers, The Cow-calf Organization, National Farmers Jnion, Palli ser Wheat Growers, Farm Bureau, and spokesman of the Canadian Agriculture Movement, �lso a member of the MICP.

I have stood at the unloading docks at the stockyards and talked to several hundred farmers �oncerning the checko ff and other farm problems. Ninety some percent said they were against the �heckoff with no vote. I have worked with members of the NFU trying to persuade the Manitoba 3overnment not to make the mistake of railroading this through, all to no avail. There are times, throughout this brief you may think I am talking through my hat, but not so. I have seen and I have heard enough to arrive at the conclusions that follow.

The Manitoba Government offer no just reason for ignoring us.$ lt seems we farmers must not be content just to produce food products but must be prepared to keep control until it is in the hands of the processor and perhaps even to the hands of the consumer. There is an never- ending line of leeches waiting their chance to bite into the fruits of our labour for an easy living if we allow it. That is why we are here before this Committee to explain the situation and how it will affect working people on the farm and the consumer in the long run.

Every time we are forced to defend ourselves from bad government, production is shut down on the farm, which not only costs us, but costs all people within our country dependent on handling our produce for a living. This in turn costs the government tax dollars. Many of we farmers are well aware of what is tak ing place within our country, in fact, the so-called free world. To put it quite plainly, organized crime is making a 23

Standing Committee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 strong move to take over the food supply. Not only is it more powerful than bombs and bulle1 but more profitable. They are well on their way to having the grain business sewed up and tl cattle business is muchly in their control, but Manitoba hasn't got their organization in control the farmers yet. How do they get control? By using the government of the day to pass the necessa laws to give it to them. The only visible hope of stopping it from happening here is an immedia farmer revolt.

We are well aware the Manitoba Government knows full well the majority of farmers are strong opposed to a checkoff to finance this planned new organization. lt is really the Beef Growers a brand new set of armour bestowed on them by the Manitoba Government. The Manitoba Be Growers couldn't possibly con the cow-calf men into supporting a checko ff to be handled by ther because it is a well known fact the money is to be used against the cow-calf man.

The Beef Grower Organization has stated publicly many times they shall fight to keep the present system of marketir alive and thriving where thieves determine what they care to dole out to the producers for the animals. Why do the Beef Growers like this type of system? Simply because they are managin feedlots that prosper with low-priced feeder cattle and low-priced feed grain. They have investe nothing to produce either product so have nothing to lose and everything to gain. They just lm their role of pitting consumers against producers whenever the price of cattle gets anywhere nel realistic.

In times of depression in cattle prices and they are common, they spread stories < over-production when in actual fact we are importing meat supplies. We haven't produced enoug beef in Canada in ten years to meet the needs of the people - for a very good reason too, whic is, we don't have security at market at a reasonable price for a very costly and perishable produc Only a numbskull would spend money he doesn't have to produce something he can't sell. If h does he will be bankrupt soon and they are. The cow- calf man is going to have to get businesslik and put a price on his product if he is going to survive.

The Manitoba Government is guilty of using their power position to bring organized crime i the back door to rule over us all, including themselves, for all time if they put Bill 25 into effec The law will then be: produce under their rules or quit. There are no provisions built into the bill to give us any protection as with a marketing boarc whereby 10 percent of producers signing a petition can force a referendum to be held. There is nothing democratic about Bill 25 and the government on the matter.

In fact, if th Manitoba Beef Growers and the Manitoba Government were being paid by the Soviet Union t' destroy the freedom and the confidence of the Manitoba farmers in western democracy, they couldn' do a better job. Communism never came to power in any country where there was a fair and jus treatment to its citizens by the previous government. lt has always been brought on by dishones ruthless racketeers gouging the working people for their own selfish interests. Why anybody tries to hog more than they need, I suppose I will never know.

They can't tak1 it with them and if they pass large sums on to their next-of -kin, it can only serve to deny then the pleasure of earning their own, never really knowing the value of a buck. To amass large sum: one must take the means of earning a living from many people, leaving them nothing but welfan or starvation.

To pass on to the next generation the means of earning a living far exceeds an: alternative. 1 was of the opinion the Conservative Party policy was to make it possible for people unde its government to own and operate their own business, but I see it is rather to make a few lord: to enslave the rest of the populace. Points not acceptable in Bill 25 are: 1(

e) Producers in my opinion can only be honestly defined as those people who own and carE for cows bearing calves yearly. Anyone else would have to classed as one of the parasites feedin� off the producer. In 3, there could be as low as four board members making the decisions aff ecting the cattlE industry in Manitoba, the way the regulations read. No.5 is a lie as 6(2) says so. The board will not have the rights of a natural person. 6(a), No. 6(1 )(

a) is stupid, as any adver tising or promotion of the beef industry has to brin£ unnecessary hardships on other farmers, either in the cattle business or in other types of animal meat production. Frequently the farmer gives his cattle away below the cost of production, and advertising the meat the retailer is making a handsome profit on, only adds insult to injury, and the advertising media gets fatter on our bucks. The spy network setup known as information reporters should not be allowed for reasons shown right herein.

No. 6(1) whereby the producer is forced to pay for the collection of data on themselves concerning their cattle business, and then the board sends this information to the people who are stealing our cattle. We dispose of our cattle in what some term a free market system. Of cou rse this area is overrun with with every kind of con man and leech imaginable, stealing by any means what he can. The only small glimm er in the farmer's favour is when the so-called buyer gets a little �4

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 anicky and really does start bidding against the other buyer in order to get his supply. Now if 1e board is going to compile all the information on supply and send it to our might-be buyers, 1ey are never going to have to put the price up unnecessarily to get us to keep those heifers home >r breeding. We won't even have the myth that "supply and demand" sets the price. In short, our uyers will be able to program us to fit their needs, but never us them to fit ours. 6(b) - to sponsor research into production and marketing is just a pretence to provide world )Urs for more bums. 6(

c) is a prime example of the retarded dreaming of the Manitoba Beef Growers' Board believing, r more probably hoping, we will be believing that to produce a finer quality animal would result 1 more money for the producer. The fact is, he probably takes less because it puts more beef n the retail shelves, but more profit for the packer and retailers with the quality improved, of course 1ey must charge more for it. Here again, it can be said that Manitoba Beef Growers are falling .11 over themselves to please the packers, not the cow-calf man. We don't want more markets for 1elow cost of production cattle, we want a fair price and all these problems will take care of hemselves. 6(

d) is just explaining and making legal their intention to conspire with the Canadian Cattlemen's lssociation against the cow-calf man of North America. 6(

e) is to have binding cont ract with undesirable organizations so as to insure against the ,ossibility of some decent people in the future getting power to withdraw from them. 6(f), in the first part, could mean jail for anybody who disagrees with the board. The second >art concerning assisting producers in production and marketing cattle gives them too much room or skulld uggery here.

Could be more or our money going to Imperial Oil, Royal Bank, Willy Obrant, he Dubois boys, or Harvey Dand's Mia mi feed lot. ?(a) - Requiring the keeping of books and records in relation to our cattle business and forced o submit such information to the board is nothing but state control designed to squeeze out of 1s the information so vital to organized crime to keep their milk ing machines running lmoothly. ?(

a) or (

b) Violation of people's rights to force them to contribute to a fund designed to finance l. program to keep them in perpetual poverty under .the control of the provincial thugs. There is 10 outline specifying the procedure for reclaiming money that has forcibly been removed at the ime of selling one's cattle. 7(2)(

a) lt also states it will be a compulsory checkoff after the appointed board install an elected :>oard. And 8, this is the one that really tears it. This openly gives the board the right to discrimi nate :tgainst anyone or group they like. An example would be to coll ect checkoff from cow-calf people md exempt feedlot operators. Admi nistration by-laws: 11 (

a) The government appointed board makes the decision of who can be a registered producer. This again gives them total control to decide who is going to sit on an elected board. 11 (

b) Also they have the power to set term of office to 25 years or more. 11 (

d) Gives them more protection from democ racy interfering with their plotting. 11 (

e) Gives them power to establish a head office convenient to packers and not to cow-calf people. 11 (

h) Establishes for all time the trusted group to select the best possible board to perpetuate the exploitation of the cow-calf producer. 11

(2) The establishment of districts and subdistricts is a clever plot used by Manitoba Pool Elevators to keep local bickering going on between one another at the local level, and keep the members out of the directo r's hair. If a member approaches a director with a problem at the top, he simply tells him to bring it through the proper channels. See your local man, and there it dies. 11

(3) To repeal or amend a by-la w that didn't have the approval of the board would be next to impossible, as the ordinary producer would not have the facilities or finances to notify all the other producers, so another big score for the bullies. Obviously nothing is left to chance. The majority at the meeting can't change it either. 12

(1) Dealers collecting fees. I wonder who and how this is to be policed. There is no way the intended leech is going to receive the fee as far as I can see, but no worry, it will do less harm that way. 12

(2) Producer selling one to another. This is a matter of protecting the one cattle producer who can put a price on his product. The purebred breeders sell their cattle this way and are the one group that might get benefits from research and promotion paid for by the checkoff. 13 Corporate Act not applying to the board. I presume gives the board immunity of responsibility of a natural person, and isn't skipping easy. 14 Placement of Bill 25 in the statutes of Manitoba, I would presume is to make it most difficult 25

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 for God himself to remove it and free the people. 15 Since this Act comes into force on a day fixed by proclamation, we can only hope it won' be retroactive to 19 45. In conclusion, if the Comm ittee thinks I have a negative attitude, then I say thanks. I must b1 doing something right.

To protect oneself from his enemies, one must know them, and know then I do, so I have done my very best to seek out the very worst in Bill 25 and expect it to be fact I ask you to remember even if you can't believe me, ask yourself if Bill 25 is so good and so man� cow-calf people want it, then why do we need the legislation to force it on the people? Why don' we have a referendum and let democracy decide the issue? Conscientiously submitted by Ton� Riley. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Riley. Will you accept questions from members of thE Committee? MR. RILEY: Yes, I will. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The first name I have on the list is Mr. Driedger. MR. DRIEDGER: Is your main source of income from livestock? MR. RILEY: No, it is not. MR. DRIEDGER: How many livestock do you market in a year? MR. RILEY: I would refrain from divulging my supply of livestock on the grounds that it tends to lower price if we tell what cards we hold in our hands. MR. DRIEDGER: Do you believe in a livestock organization? MR. RILEY: Only if it's truly run by by the producers like, I don't like the illusion that we have a producers' organization.

I want it to be truly a producers' organization, only producers involved in it. MR. DRIEDGER: Do you believe in an elected organization? MR. RILEY: If it's done in a democratic way, yes I do. MR. DRIEDGER: Well, do you believe that provisions under Bill 25, because I believe you are probably acquainted with it having gone through it step by step, do you believe that there is provision for a properly elected board? MR. RILEY: Absolutely and definitely not. MR. DRIEDGER: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hanuschak. MR. HANUSCHAIK: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Riley.

Looking at Bill 25 and the definition of an information reporter, and also at the same time looking at your brief within which you describe yourself as a member of the Manitoba Beef Growers, the Cow- Calf Organization, I would take it that you would regard yourself as a producer. MR. RILEY: That's right. Yes. MR. HANUSCHAK: You may also recall from reading the bill, that information reporter also includes, within its definition, buyer of beef. Do you recall that? MR. RILEY: lt also includes which, pardon me? MR. HANUSCHAK: Buyers of beef. MR. RILEY: Oh, buyers of beef.

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 MR. HANUSCHAK: Yes. So, now if I were to buy a side of a steer from you, in your opinion, would I be classified a buyer of beef? MR. RILEY: Well, as far as Bill 25 goes, you would be, but in my opinion you wouldn't be. MR. HANUSCHAK: Very well. Now, given that fact and that

interpretation, Sir, do you feel that an organization such as this, or any organization, ought to be given the right, an organization not answerable to the people in the Province of Manitoba, should it be given the right to demand certain information as per

Section 7(1) it is granted the right to do, under threat of sending those people to jail if they do not provide the information? Do you feel that is fair? Do you agree with that? MR. RILEY: No, I definitely don't. I think it's an absolute menace. MR. HANUSCHAK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam. MR. ADAM: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Riley, you belong to several associations, I see here by the first paragraph, and therefore any of these groups that have written in to the Minister in support of Bill 25 does not have your support? MR. RILEY: No, it certainly does not.

They didn't even bother to consult the regular membership. MR. ADAM: Has the Manitoba Pool - I don't know if they wrote in in support of this legislation - have they conta cted you to find out whether you in fact support this kind of legislation? MR. RILEY: No, they've gone to great pains to avoid me, I would say would be more like it, and they do not wish to even discuss the matter with me as far as that goes. MR. ADAM: Well, what about the - you're a member of the Manitoba Beef Growers, too. I'm surprised, because the Minister indicated that he had a letter, or some sort of support for beef checkoff.

Are you a member of the Manitoba Beef Growers? MR. RILEY: Yes, I have been in the past. I am currently lapsed, you might say, as of last March. MR. ADAM: Is this what broke the camel's back here, this kind of legislation that convinced you to withdraw from that association? MR. RILEY: I don't mind telling you why I am a member of Manitoba Beef Growers and the Cow-Calf Associa tion. lt is because I believe in farmers having an organization. I don't believe in getting in one organization and looking at all other organizations and saying they're all nincompoops, or they can't do anything for the farmer.

I think the way we've got to improve ourselves is associating with one another in all organizations and be p repared to accept the good ideas from them all, and if they are right, tell them so and agree with them, and support them. And when they are wrong tell them so too. And once you confine yourself to one organization, you don't have the opportunity to even discuss these things. There's no room for improvement anywhere along the way and there never will be, so long as we stay separated from one another, and that is the reason.

There is very little 1 was in agreement with the Manitoba Beef Growers Associat ion, but just the same I think I've learned some good things from them, and I've tried to tell them a few things and my points of view. I'm not saying I got through to any of them, but I still think it's my duty to try. MR. ADAM: Mr. Riley, do you happen to know . what the membership of the Manitoba Beef Growers? MR. RILEY: No, I couldn't give you a figure on that, a current figure like. I did when I was a paid-up member and attending the meetings; I knew what it was, the membership. MR. ADAM: Well, would you hazard a guess? MR.

RILEY: 1 could belie ve they might have a few hundred, like 200 or 300. 27

MR. ADAM: How much? Standing Committee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 MR. RILEY: Probably a few hundred, 200 or 300. MR. ADAM: A few hundred. MR. RILEY: A few hundred. I could believe they did, paid-up mem bers like. MR. ADAM: One or two, three hundred, maybe? MR. RILEV: Yes, they could have 300. MR. ADAM: That would be about the maximum? MR. RILEY: But I don't really know either, because I wasn't at their last annual meeting. No doub1 they'd be discussing that type of thing there. MR. ADAM: Have you any knowledge how many members are in the Cow-Calf organization? MR.

RILEY: No, I don't really, but just from talking to the membership I know that most of them have turned away from it. MR. ADAM: The membership has really slipped. MR. RILEY: Yes, you might as well say it's out of existence. MR. ADAM: lt's almost non-existent? MR. RILEY: Yes. MR. ADAM: Well, I could see you're quite disturbed about this legislation because you come on pretty strong on a lot of points. I guess you feel this bill is pretty odious, onerous, and odorous as well? MR. RILEY: Yes, and that's a ten-four for sure. MR. ADAM: I can tell by your brief that you certainly have. MR.

RILEY: There's a thing here like, (10) is a good example, like I never even mentioned it in my brief, that really the fee limit is unlimited, because they could have a special general meeting anytime they care, half a dozen of them, special general meeting, and they'd make the decision for calling a meeting. The method of calling a meeting and holding meetings of the Association of Registered Producers, they make that decision too. They make all the rules.

So anytime there isn't a rule to apply to what they want to do they can make up another one, and they could have that fee $10 a head if they wanted to, and they could charge me $10 a head and the next fella could go free. They have that right because of the discrimination that they've got written in here that gives them the right. lt's legal and it's proper, acc ording to this bill if it goes through. lt's not proper, but according to the law it is. MR.

ADAM: Do you think that under this bill - they have no rights acco rding to the bill, under the restricted powers, to go into production, sale and marketing, or processing of cattle? Would you think there is enough latitude in there that they could restrict the number of producers in the province? MR. RILEY: Yes, the way I see this bill they have the power to license all existing producers today, and if you don't abide by their rules, or they tend to decide that you're an unsatisfactory producer, they could withdraw that licence, and you're left with no markets.

Even though the markets are not much good to us now, with no market at all we're out of business. MR. ADAM: I want to ask you one more question here. You mentioned the Farm Bureau. Did the Farm Bureau contact you to find out whether you supported this type of an organization before they wrote to the Minister expressing their support?

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 MR. RILEY: No, the Farm Bureau never contacts us directly at all. The only time it comes anywhere near us is when they're asking our Manitoba Pool to contribute more money or our hog board to contribute some money to them , like $55,000 from Pool and $4,000 from the Manitoba Hog Board, and those type of things. That's an annoying kind of, almost contact. And that's the only kind we ever get. MR. ADAM: How then do they know the opinions of the grassroots when they make any decisions? MR.

RILEY: Well, I think they're like Colonel Klinck, they know what's good for the people and they make the decisions and they do not want the ordinary people having anything to do in the decisions of their future. They'll decide for them what is good. MR. ADAM: Do you belong to the Un ited Grain Growers too? MR. RILEY: Yes, I guess you could say that but I withdrew my money so maybe I don't, I don't know. MR. ADAM: They wrote a letter of support as well to the Minister tor this bill. Did they ask you whether you supported it as a member of the Grain Growers? MR. RILEY: No, they did not. No. MR. ADAM: Thank you. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Riley just how it is that he concludes that if you were to take the mask off this legislation, that it is really legislation for the Manitoba Beef Growers' Associa tion? MR. RILEV: Well, having talked to the Manitoba Beef Growers' representative in our area, Delmar Purdy he told me he and other ' Beef Grower board members were responsible for drafting that bill and they presented it to the Agricultural Minister tor . MR. ADAM: Are you saying the Minister did it? MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, is the witness telling us that an outside interest drafted the legislation, is that what you're saying, Sir ? MR. RILEY: No, if we're talking about the Manitoba Beef Growers' Board, to my knowledge they were the ones responsible tor drafting this. At least this is what Delmar Purdy told me. MR. USKIW: Well, all right, if that is the case then, did they hold a general membership meeting and allow their members to peruse the draft bill or proposal, whatever it was, that was presented to the Minister? MR.

RILEY: Well, not to my knowledge, and if they did they did it without notifying me and, as a matter of fact, they sent us a letter earlier in the year notifying us that they had had a rough draft of such a plan and that there would be more discussion on it at the annual meeting and I was unable to attend the annual meeting so I know not, except what was printed in the paper, I know not what went on at that annual meeting. MR. USKIW: Then I take you to the other organization which you are also a member of, the Cow-Calf Producers Associa tion.

You had indicated that they are virtually out of existence but we are led to believe by the Minister that that organization is in support of his legislation. I would like to know from you whether there was a general meeting of the Cow-Calf Producers Association with members present in a large body, all of them having been notified, that have voted on this proposal. MR. RILEY: No, there never was to my knowledge any such meeting and even long before this, we never were notified of meetings. We never even had any meetings to my knowledge in our area which is District 7, I believe. 29

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 MR. USKIW: Well, then let me take you another step. Have any of the associations that you an connected with held meetings to discuss this bill or a proposal for such a bill, of their generE membership? MR. RILEV: Well, the Manitoba Farmers Union has and MICP has had a meeting or two on i1 nothing too large as far as that goes. There wasn't the whole province in attendance but they wen aware of what was being discussed though. MR.

USKIW: Are you suggesting to us then that it is the executive of some of these organization: that have taken it upon themselves to take on this responsibility? MR. RILEV: Solely, I would say, solely. MR. USKIW: I see. Do you think that the membership would support the executive decision o these associations, or do you think there would be a fairly large question with respect to that� MR. RILEV: Well, in regard to the Manitoba Beef Growers and Cow-Calf, I think possibly becausE the memberships dwindled to almost nothing and the few that are left with them are loya supporters. MR. USKIW: How many are there? MR.

RILEV: But that is paid members like, they are direct paid. MR. USK IW: How many would there be? MR. RILEV: In the Manitoba Beef Growers or the total? MR. USKIW: Well, the last time that you were a member of the Beef Growers or the last information you had, how many members were there . MR. RILEV: There were 400. MR. USKIW: .. with respect to the Manitoba Beef Growers? MR. RILEV: Yes, 400 in the Manitoba Beef Growers, the last information I had. MR. USKIW: How long ago was that? Six months, a year? MR. RILEV: No, no, it would have to be 19 76, I think. MR. USKIW: 19 76. All right.

To the best of your knowledge, how many members are there in the Cow-Calf Produc ers Association today? MR. RILEV: Well, I suspect 20, but I don't know for sure. MR. USKIW: Twenty? A MEMBER: Twenty? MR. RILEV: Yes, yes. MR. USKIW: I see. MR. RILEV: I think it might be that high, I'm not sure. MR. USKIW: 1 see. So then you are alleging, obviously, that the Minister of Agriculture does not have the support of the rank and file cattle producer in this province for this legislation. MR. RILEV: 1 know for sure he doesn't.

He doesn't have the rank and file because I stood at that Auction Mart and I talked to those farmers - we didn't pick any particular farmers - we talked to them as they came in to deliver livestock, and it was very rarely we ran into a farmer who would

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 ;upport this Bill 25, very rare.$ III R. USKIW: In your opinion then, why is it that this Minister is pursuing this bill? IIIR. RILEY: Well, the Manitoba Beef Growers gave me to understand one year ago in March - was at their annual meeting, they gave me to understand that "their guys," as they referred to he Conservative Party, when they got into power were going to put this checko ff in for them and hey said it right there at the meeting.

III R. guskiw; Well, let's then assume that you are correct, that it is "their guys" and therefore i subsequent government would presumably not be "their guys." What should a subsequent �overnment do to this legislation? III R. RILEY: Well, in my opinion, it should be thrown out. III R. USKIW: Well, let me put it in a different way. Would you agree with me that legislation that s introduced by government forcing people to become a party to an association is indeed the doom Jf that association and that no other party could afford to recognize such a group ? MR.

RILEY: Well, it's not only the demise of the organization but the government in my opinion. it's a foolhardy thing to do. We're in a democracy here and we fought two world wars for it and many people suffered for it, and many people contributed and why we would go against it, I just c:an't understand it. MR.

USKIW: The point I am making, Sir , is: Would I be correct in assuming that since this association is being brought into existence by a government, that that in itself must indicate that it is a Conservative wing of the Party and therefore is not an association of cattlemen but a front for the Government of Manitoba? A MEMBER: That's not bad. MR.

RILEV: Well, I hate to even call it Conservatives or else I haven't learned what Conservatives really are because I never thought Conservatives were what this Bill 25 is. lt's certainly anti-Canadian, anti-Manitoban, anti-farmer, anti-human being, and if it's Conservative, yes, and it is done by the party in office today for the benefit of the beef growers and that was planned and intended to be this way. MR.

USKIW: Let's assume that this bill passes and subsequently this organization wants to influence the Government of the Day and in the process of doing that most organizations usually present briefs to every political party. What credence should any political party other than the Conservative Party give to this association? MR. RILEV: Absolutely none. MR. USKIW: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uruski. POINT OF PRIVILEGE MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I wish to at this point in time raise a matter of privilege of this Committee.

Several minutes ago the Minister of Agriculture in his comments drew an analogy between Bill 25 to a member who proposed a brief to this Committee, and the Bill that he drew the analogy to was the bill organizing or setting up

an Act to Inc orporate the Red River Community College Students Associa tion. In his analogy he indicated that those two bills were similar and like in all aspects. Mr. Chairman, what the Minister has done and I will point out, first of all, in Bill 25 under

Section 7 ... MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McK enzie on a point of order. 31

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, this matter can be debated in the House. We are here tonight t deal with briefs from these farmers who have come from all across the province, and Mr. Chairmar I insist that we are here to hear briefs only and not debate about points of order. And 1 suggel to the Honourable Member for St. George, Mr. Chairman, that he can debate this matter with th Minister of Agriculture in the House. Let's carry on and hear the briefs from these members th� are here, sitting and waiting to be heard. We can hear the Honourable Member for St.

George a next week. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw on the same point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. USKIW: The Member for St. George has introduced a matter of privilege of this Committe, based on the statement of the Minister of Agriculture. lt is your duty, Sir, to hear out the matte of privilege without the interruption of the Member for Roblin. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, if I may continue.

The Minister of Agriculture what he has done, h1 has led members of the public and members of this Com mittee right down the garden path int1 believing that the two bills that he has mentioned were somewhat analogous and that there i: legislation on the books in Manitoba today which is totally compatible to the legislation that is bein! presented to members of the Committee and members of the public here at this Committee or Bill 25. Bill 25 under

Section 7(1) brings forward the powers of regulation that this group has set unde Bill 25, and the regulations can be put into force by this group responsible to no one Also under

Section 9(1) of Bill 25, this group has the sole responsibility for enforcement anc prosecution and they also have under the same Act the power to go to anyone connected witl this industry to demand and receive information dealing with the cattle industry. And if you loo� at the Red River Community College Bill, there are no such powers in that bill. The Associatior has all the powers, privileges and immunities conferred by, and is subject to all the limitations anc liabilities set out in The Companies Act, and in addition to the following powers which deal witt the publishing of information and the like.

If the Minister is suggesting that he is prepared to amend this bill that is before this CommitteE and to confer on the Legislature that this organization be bound by the ... MR. McKENZIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: .. . then this bill can be withdrawn right now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Mr. McKenzie on a point of order. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, I again insist that you rule on this matter. We can debate this in the House for the next month or two weeks. I suggest, Mr.

Chairman, we are here to hear briefs from these citizens who have come from across the Province of Manitoba to make their views known on Bill 25, not to hear the Honourable Member for St. George debating some point of order. And I suggest, Mr. Chairman, you rule him out of order and we proceed with the hearings. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ein arson on the same point of order. MR. EINARSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to for St. George had a point of ggest that the Member order. A MEMBER: Point of privilege. MR.

EINARSON: All right then, a point of privilege, then if he had a point of privilege he should have raised it at the time that the Minister of Agriculture raised that matter. He has let a lot of time go by, listened to brie fs and many comments from other people. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that because he did not bring the matter up at the time the Minister mentioned this thing that he is out of order. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, I put my name down before the Committee. lt took me some time to go to the other Committee, to be able to check the legislation and to refer back to the comments that the Minister of Agriculture has made. What this Minister has done, he has misled the Members of this Committee and members of the public who have come here to represent and make representations on this bill, by making the analogy that these two bills and there is legislation on the books in Manitoba that is totally analogous, and that is totally false, Mr. Chairman. 32

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 That is my point of privilege. •R. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey on the same point of privilege. �R. DOWNEY: Just a clarification for the Committee, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to say that did clarify when I made my opening remarks that it was a Pr ivate Members' Bill and I think that did not mislead any comm ittee, that I did not refer to the fact that the penalties were the same, hat the Act would penalize the people the same. I did clarify that it was a Private Member's bill 1nd the rules apply as regulations state on that particular matter.

So I would like to carry on with he hearings, and I have a couple of questions for the . IIR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw on the point of privilege. IIIR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, on the same point, yes. The Minister is now backtracking and is 1uggesting that this comm ittee should get on with the business and I don't blame him for suggesting t because he is in a bit of a corner. He has made a statement that is untrue, he has been found >ut in the same co mmittee meeting, and he is now trying to get out from under by suggesting that his committee ought to get on with its business.

Its business is to give the people of Manitoba he true facts and the Minister has failed miserably in that regard, Mr. Chairman. III R. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I think all I did was clarify that I did point out at the beginning of ny statement that it was in fact a Private Member's bill and I didn't try to mislead anyone. Let :he record show it. III R. CHAIRMAN: To return to the subject at hand, the next name on my list is Mr. Einarson for �uestioning the witness. Mr. Einarson. III R. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, are you prepared to rule on the point of privilege that I have raised? fhe matter or point of privilege was that there was an analogy made by the statements of the Minister :>f Agriculture. My point of privilege was that there certainly is no analogy and . that the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture have in fact have been borne out that they are untrue in the statements he has made.

No one argued that it was a Private Member's bill, but the fact that he indicated that the same powers, he indicated the powers are contained within the Pri vate Member's bill are the same as these that are sponsored by the government which is not true. MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of privilege, it would appear to me that there is a difference of opinion between the two members of the co mmittee and they both have the privilege of stating them at any time. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, just on that point.

I would like to point out to you, Sir, that there's not only a difference of opinion but a difference of fact and if you wish us to table the two pieces of legislation, side by side for your perusal, you can hold your decision on the matter of privilege in abeyance. lt has to do with a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we proceed with the questioning of Mr. Riley? MR. PAWLEY: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I believe that you should indicate whether you are taking this under review, whether you will be comparing the two pieces of legislation and giving a ruling later or are you advising us that you are not ruling at all or that you have already ruled? MR. CHAIRMAN: To this point, I perceive the discussion as a difference of opinion between the Member for St. George and the Minister. MR. PAWLEY: Then, Mr. Chairman, are you ruling that the Member for St. George does not have a point of privilege? You are refusing to compare the two pieces of legislation in order to ascertain whether the Member for St.

George has privi lege or not. I just would like to clarify the Chairman's position so it's clear and it's on record. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would perceive the matter as being a difference of opinion between the two members of the comm ittee. MR. PAWLEY: So you're ruling that there is no privilege and you are refusing to coare the legislation. 33

Standing Committee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 MR. CHAIRMAN: The member has stated his point of privilege and certainly called it to the attentio of the comm ittee. Can we proceed please, Mr. Einarson. MR. EINARSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I thought I was going to make some further comments i this thing was going to carry on because ... MR. CHAIRMAN: On the bill, on the presentation of Mr. Ri ley. MR. EINARSON: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have one quick simple question. I understooc a question was asked of you, Mr. Riley, by others.

You indicated in the beginning of your brie that you are representing various organizations such as Pool Elevators, Palliser Growers, Cow-Calf the Beef Producers. Are you speaking on their behalf? MR. RILEV: There is nothing indicating I represent any of those organizations I'm a membe1 of. MR. EINARSON: I will put the question differently. You are a member of Manitoba Pool Elevators the Manitoba Beef Growers Associa tion, the Cow-Calf organization, the Farmers Union, the Pallis e1 Wheat Growers, the Farm Bureau. Do you propose to speak on their behalf or are you presentin� a brief strick strictly on your own?

MR. RILEY: This is strictly on my own. MR. EINARSON: One other question, are you a produc�r of beef? MR. RILEY: Yes, I am. MR. EINARSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Riley, I believe early on you had a question asked by the Member for Ste. Rose. You were asked by him, I believe . A MEMBER: On a point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw on a point of order. MR. USKIW: Yes. lt is our wish to appeal your ruling on the matter of privilege to the Assembly. MR. CHAIRMAN: As I understand the rules then, this comm ittee would have to rise and the matter be ruled on in the House. MR.

USKIW: Yes. Well, you want to play games, we'll play games. - (Interjection)- You're darn right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pawley. MR. PAWLEV: Mr. Chairman, could I suggest that you take this matter under advisement, that at the conclusion of the briefs this evening, you indicate clearly whether you are acc epting this as a point of privilege or not. At that point then, we can challenge your ruling, take it to the House but at least we could proceed with the hearing of briefs this evening if it's handled in that manner. MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order pointed out by the Member for Selkirk is well taken.

I shall take the two items under advisement and shall give the comm ittee a ruling at a later time. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, I don't see how the committee could proceed. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the Chair has ruled on the point of order. 34

Standing Committee On Agriculture Wednesday, July 12, 1978 MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, I'm speaking on the point of order that's before us .... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: if the former Minister of Agriculture would give me the time. MR. USKIW: There is no poi

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-2-ag1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 2nd hansardpdf ag1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0316b0789b9f585a0e08090fe59743349a21b547

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