Manitoba Committee Hansard — 14 July 1978 (Agriculture and Food Committee, Sitting 3, 31st Legislature, 2nd Session)

31-2-ag3

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE ON STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE Chairman Mr. Robert Anderson Constituency of Springfield Friday, July 14, 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 Friday, July 14, 1978 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Robert (Bob) Anderson. MR. CHAIRMAN: We appear to have a quoru m. The first witness on the list is Mik e Taczynski of Gypsumville. Is he present? He appears not to be here. George Higgs (not present). Ted Wilson (not present). Jim Chegwin (not present). MR. ROSS: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chegwin has sent a brief in as he was not able to be present. have the brief with me. I would read it into the record if the commi ttee ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. SAMUEL USKIW: Just on that point, Mr.

Chairman, are you sugges ting, sir, that you have a brief to present for Jim Chegwi n, and then another one for yourself, or just the one? MR. LYLE ROSS: I'm Lyle Ross. My name is on the list. I have a brief to present for myself, but I have a brief in hand from Jim Chegwin who is unable to be present, that I would read into the record on his behalf. Also, I may add, Mr. Chairman, the first name on the list that was mentioned previously was Mik e Taczynski, who is unable to be present. His brief is also here now. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I am informed by the Clerk that these brie fs if deposited with the Clerk will be included in the records of our proce edings and printed that way. Mr . Driedger. MR. ALBERT DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, could the speaker please identify himself? MR. ROSS: I am Lyle Ross from Basswood. MR. DRIEDGER: Mr . Chairman, is the gentleman on the list? MR. CHAIRMAN: He is number 19 . MR. ROSS: I didn't come up to speak on my own behalf; I came up on behalf of Mr. Jim Chegwin whose brief I had in my posses sion.

I wanted to make it known to the comm ittee that a brief was here, that he had been unable to att end, and that I would read it on his behalf. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Driedger. MR. DRIEDGER: Mr . Chairman, I'm just wondering, will the order of procedure be acco rding to the list that we have? MR. CHAIRMAN: As I have it. MR. DRIEDG ER: Would Mr. Ross be appearing again under number 19, then? Is that the idea? MR. CHAIRMAN: That was my understanding, unless the commit tee wishes otherwise. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON: Mr .

Chairman, as I am given to understand, if there are any people who are unable to be present, and a brief is left here, then that will be filed with the Clerk, and can be reco rded. I don't think, as I am given to understand the rules of the commit tee, that anyone

Standing Comm ittee On Agricultur e Friday, July 14, 19 78 who is not present, that someone else is able to present his brief. Rather, that brief will be lef· with the Clerk and can be recorded. When, as Mr . Lyle Ross indicated, I belie ve that his time wil come on the roster as the Chairman receives them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, On a on a point of order, there is nothing in the rules preventing < person to represent another person with a brief. That has been done consistently since I have beer a member of the Legislative Assembly, Sir, so the Member for Rock Lake is not correct.

Anyone can present a brief on behalf of another person, it is done every year, by lawyers and by or dinar) people. The Farm Bureau did not pr esent the brief in the name that it was listed last night, Mr Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Perhaps we can resolve this by indicating to Mr. Ross that were you to leave the documents with the Clerk, they will be photocopied and distribut ed to the Mem ben of the Commi ttee. They will also be included in the records. Should you wish to present the briefs that will also be acc eptable. MR. ROSS: If there is a choice there, Mr. Chairman ... MR.

USKIW: You would have both choices. You can read it and then leave it for the comm ittee. or you can just table it, if that is your preference. MR. ROSS: I would prefer to read it and I would prefer to leave the copies that are available witll the commit tee. MR. CHAIRMAN: By all means. Mr . Einarson. MR. EINARSON: Mr. Chairman, then to clarif y things, I am not going to be difficult here. If Mr. Ross wants to read the brief that Mr. Chegwin has left, I have no objection to that whatsoever. The point that I was making is that I di dn't feel it was fair that Mr. Ross should be all owed to be questioned on Mr .

Chegwin's brief and at the same time be allo wed to be questioned on his own brief. I have no objection if Mr . Ross wants to present Mr. Chegwin's brief, there is no problem there whatsoever. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed , Mr. Ross. MR. ROSS: I'll present these copies after then. This is a brief from Mr. James Chegwin, WOODY Y, Chegwin Cutability of Cattle, Angus Limousin, P. 0. Box 12 08, Swan River, Manitoba. lt says here: James K. Chegwin, Brief to Law Amendments Comm ittee of Manitoba Legislature, Re Bill 25.

" 1 write with appreciation to be able to present my views in the formation of laws that will affect me and future Manitobans. I write in respect for the system set up. Bill 25, if passed as drafted, will, in my opinion, remove these democratic rights from the cattle produc ers in Manitoba. The fact that it will be forced on theproduc ers without a vote by the produc ers is a vivid reason for this opinion.

Bill 25, if it becomes law, would prevent cattle produc ers from guiding changes in our marketing system that would provide an economic atmosphere and environment that would be more satisfactory for produc ers and other workers and business people dependent on the beef industry. In the above paragraph, I am thinking of the broad fluctuations of price in our present system. This insecurity is not only undesirable to the producer, but is the cause of instability to the many more workers and business people involved in the industry, and to the consumer.

Our entire history in this area has been a record of instability. At the times when we Manitobans have had depr essed markets, much of the economy of Manitoba has also been depr essed. We must be free to guide our marketing system so that it would be more desirable to Manitobans. I believe that Bill 25 should be scrapped in its entirety. The very essence of the bill is wrong. There are many amendments, deletions and additions that would make this bill of some value to the beef producers, dependent workers and businessmen. A checkoff supporting our present system is not desirable for Manitobans.

Respec tfully, Jim Chegwin." MR. CHAIRMAN: Does that com plete the brief? 168

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 19 78 III R. ROSS: That compl etes the brief. III R. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I understand you also had a brief for Mr. Mik e Taczynski. III R. USKIW: A point of clarifica tion, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if Mr . Ross can tell us whether that Jrief represents the individual or an associa tion? VIR. ROSS: My understanding is that it is an individual viewpoint. Other than that point of ;larification, I am not prepared to answer questions on whatever he intended or otherwise. VIR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Adam. III R. DRIEDGER: Mr.

Chairman, on a point of order, I just wanted to ask whether it was not agreed :hat there would be no questions asked of the person presenting the brief on behalf of Mr. ::.:hegwin? III R. CHAIRMAN: I believe there were no questions to Mr. Ross in terms of the brief. lt was simply to determine whether or not the brief was that of an individual, or a brief repres enting a �roup. Mr. Adam. MR. A. R. (Pete) ADAM: Mr. Ross, are you prepared to answer any questions on Mr. Chegwin's orief? MR. ROSS: No, I am not. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ross. MR. ROSS: I also have here a brief subm itted by Mr . Mik e Taczynski.

I wish to read it into the record. MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed, I would remind all witnesses that at our first hearing the commit tee decided to put a time limi t of 30 minutes on the presentation of briefs. This does not include time for questions. Proceed , Mr. Ross. MR. ROSS: On behalf of Mik e Taczynsk i, who is unable to be pres ent. "I am against this scheme because, first of all, it violates the principle of taxation without repres entation. "The Americans staged a revolution about that and I don't think we should take it lying down.

"They tell us that we may be allo wed to go hand in cap and beg the bosses of this "Cattlem en's Asso ciation" for our money back but the essence of this whole scheme is that they have the right to that money and not us, the cattle producers, and that's not acceptable to any self-respecting man. This scheme is set up for a small group of feedlot operators who control the so-called Beef Gr owers Association and so-called Cattle men's Asso ciation, who may not ever own the feedlot and the cattle in it, but operate them for the packing companies or chain stores.

"When these cattle are sold the objective would not be to sell them at an adequate price but a low pric e so that the superm arkets could push beef as a loss leader and increase sales. "This may not be happening now but it did happen a few months ago. The interests of the packers also demand that these cattle out of their own feedlots be sold at lowest possible price because that did set the price for all other cattle sold on the market. "The other half of the group that is pushing for this scheme are a few big cattlemen.

In the most cases these gentlemen have other interests and operations and do not derive their livelihood exclusively from cattle so the price of cattle is not a matter of life and death to them. lt is to us small cattlemen. These cattlemen emphasize the large scale of their operations and the number of cattle they have. I'm certain they would dearly love to have a scheme where their cows would have a vote against the small cattlemen. They may succeed, too, if we don't watch out.

"I' m convinced that the final objective of this scheme is the total elimi nation of the cattlemen, because he would not survive under the prices that have prevailed in the last several years. The cattle farmers would either be controlled by a few big operators, or the packers and supermarkets, or a combina tion of both, which would mean no good for the ordi nary farmer or consumer. The big sum of money which would be colle cted under this scheme would be used as a millstone around the farmer's neck to push big busi ness concepts of a way of life as they wanted and not necessarily 169

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 1978 what people need. "They tell us that the money would be used to promote the sales of beef. That has been done before by reducing prices and I fail to see where the farm family would benefit. All that we, the small cattlemen, are asking for is that we be given the chance to express our opinion and not tc be saddled with an obligation that is not in our interests. Since the cattlemen never did have a say in what his beef will sell at - I am finding it difficult to read the type here - the price sell to the largest quantity of beef at the lowest price.

Remember, that's what promotion is all about. "The family farm cattlemen will not be able to withstand the punishment and will go under and will end up in the slums of Winnipeg on welfare because they will be too old to be employed. Their children, having nothing to do, will learn crime and will end up in jail while the family farm will be taken over by big neighbours until they in turn are swallowed up by bigger operators. If you go into the farm community today, you will see all family mem bers putting up hay and doing other useful jobs. Don't deprive families of that environment.

Respectfu lly submitted, Mik e Taczynski." MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Ross. Mr. Driedger. MR. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, could that brief also be presented to the comm ittee as such? MR. CHAIRMAN: As repr esenting an indi vidual? MR. DRIEDGER: Are copies of that going to be avai lable? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is correct. The next name on the list is Bruce Medd. Is Mr. Medd here? Bruce Medd. Mac Lelond. Is Mr . Lelond here? MR. ROSS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, both Mr. Medd and Mr. Lelond were here for the hearings last night and both had to go home today, or last night, in fact. They went home after the hearings.

I also have subm issions to give on their behalf. MR. CHAIRMAN: For Mr . Medd, please. Order please. Mr. Ross. MR. ROSS: On behalf of Mr. Medd, who was here last evening prepared to give his subm ission and the hearings adjourned prior to his being able to do so. He had left in the morning with road construction going on in his farm and the fence ripped out and he didn't figure he could wait over a day to get back and find out whose part of the country his cattle may be on when he got back. "The Honourable Mr. Downey, Mr . Chairman, and members of the commit tee.

"My name is Bruce Medd - mine isn't, obviously - I am on the local Manitoba Pool Board at Beulah. By permission, I am repres enting that board. "At our last meet ing a resolution was passed, June 7, 19 78, asking Mr . Deveson, the President of Manitoba Pool Elevators, to honour a reso lution passed at a meet ing held at the Virden Auction Market. People at this meeting came from as far as Strathclair and Tilston. If you have a copy that reads Teulon, that is in error; it should read Tilston.

"The resolution is as follows: " 'That this meeting requests the board of dir ectors from Manitoba Pool Elevators to personally seek a meeting with Agriculture Minister James Downey, and ask for a postponement of Bill 25 until such time as a plebiscite can be held among livestock produc ers in the province and further that the results of the meeting with Mr. Downey be made public by way of a press conference to be held immedia tely following the meeting.' "This resolution was also passed at the subdis trict council 504 meet ing repres enting Beulah, Decker, Crandall, Miniota and lsabella.

As a cattle producer, I am opposed to Bill 25. This bill in its present form will do nothing to change the marketing system of beef, therefore leaving all the advantages to the big producer. The idea that is being circula ted is that a person who opts out loses his right to vote and, in itself, forces a person to stay and not opt out whether he wants to or not. To me, this is Fasci sm." 1 also have to submit for the record on Bruce Medd's behalf two lists of names that were drawn up of people opposing the beef checkoff. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Will you present that petition to the Clerk or deposit the petition with the Clerk?. 170

MR. ROSS: Yes. Standing Commit tee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 1978 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I understand you have a fourth petition with you, that's a fourth brief. Mr. Driedger. MR. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, the next speaker, could you identify who it is for? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Mr. Ross. MR. ROSS: Submis sion to the Standing Comm ittee on Agriculture of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly on the subject of Bill 25, presented in Winnipeg July 14 , 19 78, on behalf of Local 511 of the National Farmers Union. "H onourable Mr. Downey, Mr . Chairman and Comm ittee Mem bers.

I am Mac Lelond from Minio ta represe nting Local 511 of the National Farmers Union." I might add that Mr. Lelond was also in yesterday for the com mit tee meetings last night but the meetings were adjourned before he had an opportunity to present and he was not able to be here today. "I wish to present a brief for discussion concerning Bill 25.

The fact that this, if passed in its present form, would be a very dangerous bill as a few men appointed by the government could do alm ost anything they want in the following two years before an election is held as the Minister has absolutely no control over them, or farmers either for that matter. "I would also like to touch on statements made by government MLAs about over-production of beef in Canada being a controlling factor in the poor prices for cattle in the last three or four years.

According to statistics I read, this is not so and I read from a clipping: 'Canada's 19 76 im ports of 209.5 mil lion pounds of beef from Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. com pared to total exports of only 86.9 million pounds. This deficit between imports and exports of 12 2.5 million pounds is equivalent to approximately 350,000 live cattle.

The facts reconfirm our belief that Canada, which has been in a net deficit position in beef production since 19 69, has not experienced low beef prices because of over-production surpl uses but because of surpl uses created by high im ports.' "Also with stat istics, I would lik e to quote in part what the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture has released as a report recently. The recommendations of the commit tee state as follows: '" (1) that Canada adopt a long-term beef imp ort policy and that parliament enact legislation to regulate the imp ortation of beef, veal and live cattle for slaughter. '"

(2) That the legislation regulating the im portation of beef, veal and live cattle for slaughter provide for the establishment of annual quo tas for each supplying country.' " "I quote this report to show you that a government appointed national meat authority is a necessity to enact any legislations of this nature. Under Bill 25, mo ney will likely go to the Canadian Cattl emen's Associat ion as it does from other provinces. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association oppose a national meat authority. They oppose an orderly marketing of feed grains and they support the abolition of the Crowsnest Pass rail rates.

In other words, they are strictly an open-market organiza tion. Our local of the National Farmers Union is not in favour of any part of this Bill 25, however, we feel if this bill becomes law, then we believe in demo cracy. Following this belief, we ask for an opting-in clause, that is, we would not put any money into this organization by a checko ff when we sell catt le. Only those who are in favour of this checkoff opt in. "In sum mary, Local 511 of the National Farmers Union, repres enting farmers from Beulah, Miniota, Birtle and St.

Lazare oppo se Bill 25 in its present form and request a plebiscite, all of which is respec tfully subm ittted on behalf of Local 511 of the National Farmers Union, Mac Lelo nd, president ." MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Ross. Keith Proven. MR. KEITH PROVEN: Mr. Chairman, I have in fact two briefs. One is a resolution passed by the local Pool Comm ittee at Basswood which I would like to read into the record, and then I would like to go on to my main brief, if I may. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proce ed. MR. PROVEN: This resolution was passed at the Basswood Pool Comm ittee meeting, May 12, 19 78:

Whereas, Manitoba Pool Elevators was founded on the principle of orderly marketing for commodities produced by farmers, and 171

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 19 78

Whereas, the proposed beef checkoff legislation would negate this principle, and

Whereas monies will be collected without holding a refe rendum, and

Whereas Manitoba Pool Elevators and its farmer members have a very imp ortant role to pia in the beef industry in Manitoba, Therefore,

be it Resolved that the Basswood Pool Comm ittee di rect the president of Manitoh Pool Elevators to make a strong representation on their behalf to the Minister of Agriculture, Jame Downey, demanding that a ref erendum be held immedia tely to ascertain whether beef farmers wan checkoff legislation. Basswood Pool Comm ittee. Now my main brief. On behalf of the Mem bers of Local 516 of the National Farmers Union, am presenting this brief on Bill 25, The Cattle Producers Association Act. The membership of Locc 516 is unanimously opposed to Bill 25.

Local 516 comprises the R.M.s of Minto, Odanah, Clanwilliam Saskatchewan, Harrison and the LGD of Park. In politic al terms, our Local takes in a large are• of the rural constituenc y of Minnedosa. At the next election, I hope we can make Dave Blake ver: aware of that fact. He was here last night and unfortunately he is not here tonight, so I hope h� reads the record. In order to set facts straight, we have 65 paid up NFU members in our Local' approximate!: : one-half of the membership has cattle.

All the cattle producing mem bers are running small cow-cal operations - 30 cow average - with some of them feeding out their own calves. In general, thE rest of the farmers in our local who have cattle would have small cow-calf herds. The feeding ou of cattle in our area is not regarded as a major part of the cattle industry. We do have four o five 200 to 300 head feedlots and some smaller opera tions. Historically, our area has had cow-calf herds to utili ze the wastelands around sloughs and popla bluffs. e cow-calf industry never was that rewarding financially.

The farmers were able to derivE some benefits from this type of land use. We have seen a drastic dr op in the number of cattlE herds in our area in the last few years. In fact, if it was not for the previous government 's initiativE we could not support a veterinarian. In looking at statistics from over the last 50 years, we fine that in only six of those 50 years has there really been a true return to investment for the cow-cal man. lt must be noted that in the framework of our agricultural marketing system the cow-calf mar is right at the bottom.

He, in fact, has been the leader in supporting the consumer with low-cosl beef. We must admit that cattle have been a secondary industry to grain in our area but it is ridiculou� to assume that the cow-calf man should always carry the rest of the industry on his back.

Our local had hoped that with Bill 25 we would have enlightened legislation that finally woulc give the farmer the legal opportunity to control his own destiny. lt is with sadness that I have tc present this brief for it is now obvious that instead of our energies being dir ected at a marketing problem we must fight legislation that is quite simply useless.

Our local definitely does not want to see our money go towards a retirement fund for the presiden1 of the Manitoba Beef Gr owers Associa tion or to provide financial assistance for an organization which is either too lazy or does not have the concern to go out and solicit membership.

We know that the main thrust for this legislation came from the Manitoba Beef Gr owers Associa tion, an organization which in all their public utterances have indic ated that they are compl etely in the pocket of the packers and the large chain stores. lt is our observat ion that when you hear Charlie Mayer or Tom Ellison speak, you are hearing the words and thoughts of the packers. In fact, their credibility is so low that we treat them like the govern ment. Whatever is said, do the oppo site and nine times out of ten you will be right. -(Interjection)- I didn't mention any government. Now, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to go through the Act and outline some of the main concerns. Defi nitions,

Section 1(e). I don't need to read out the clauses, I hope. Everyone is familiar. Does this mean that the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation will have a voice in the proposed organiza tion? Will the chartered banks and credit unions also be represented? Will the packers who own and feed their own cattle have a vote? This refers to who will be a member of the organiza tion. Purpose,

Section 2. How can you im prove the marketing system without some power in the Act? lt has been our observa tion that farmers try to make more money within the system by becoming more effic ient. Packers try to make more money by screwing the farmers. For example, we still have a heifer and steer price differential and packers have im ported cows to depress our market. Chain stores try to make more money by screwing the packers and the consumers.

That is unrealistic mark-ups, plus in recent public ations there has been indications that chain stores have been able to force the packers with dif ferent kinds of discount buying that makes the packers in effect the slaves of the chain stores. Objects and Powers of the Associa tion,

Section 6(1) (a). This part of the Act perpetuates the myth that advertising will make us more money. In fact, the only winners are the advertising agencies. 172

Standing Committee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 19 78 They can have a contract to push beef, pork and poultry, when really each segment of the industry is in the business of providing red meat. We should be co-operating, not competing. 1( d). lt would be safe to conclude that this clause means the Canadian Catt lemen's Associat ion. We are vehemently oppo sed to giving money to this organi zation, which has as one of its principles the scrapping of the Crowsnest grain freight rates. 1(f). Without legislation. Without legislative teeth, this clause is redundant and is simply printing to fill a space. Restrictive Powers,

Section 6(2). This is the key clause if we are to have an effective organiza tion. We agree that marketing is the most vital facet to a viable beef industry. Beef farmers must control the pricing mechanism or we will always be the loss leader of the agricultural industry. We must be able to move towards a system that allo ws a farmer to know his production costs and to charge for his product accord ingly. Regulations,

Section 7(1) (a). We are not opposed to providing information on cattle numbers, prices, etc., so long as this information is compiled and passed back to the farmer Whenever information has been collected in the past it has been used by groups other than farmers to manipu late and control the market. We are suspicious that information gathered will not be used for us if we do not have a marketing mechanism in place that is controlled by the farmers. 7(2). We are opposed to the compu lsory checkoff aspect of the Act. The government may say that it is not compul sory but in fact it is.

The only way !t could be voluntary would be if when you market animals you are asked whether you wish to contribute, yes or no. Scope of Regulations,

Section 8. This clause appears to be very ambiguous as it could be read to mean that 1) Any group opposing this Act could be stopped from

part icipating in the decision-making process of the group, 2) Purebred breeders could receive special status, advantages, etc. In here it should read advertising financed by all of us. Limit on Fees,

Section 10. We have a limi t of 25 cents per head in the propo sed Act but no limi t to the number of times it can be collected. Therefore, it is possible to have the same animal collected on th ree or four times. There is no indication whether imp orted cattle will be subject to levy or, simili arly, whether large pureb red sales in auction rings will have to pay. Admin istration By-Law,

Section 11 (1) (a). Who will oversee this appointed group to make sure that all procedu res are legal? 1( h). How will we ensure that this group will not elimi nate all opposition to their ide as by not registering any potential bona fide producers? In general, clause 1 is so unclear it could be used very effectively to limit membership, even though a farmer does contribute his 25 cents per head.

In summin g up, we would have to say that we feel the Act is ill-conceived and very inadequate and should b thrown up. 1t obviously will only help support a special interest group and lill have no positive effect on 99 percent of the cattle growers of Manit oba. If the Act is not to be scrapped, then we would suggest the following amendments: 1. Place it under the umbrella of the Natural Products Marketing Act. 2. Stop dir ect to packer sales. 3. Initiate a policing agency that would make it possible for auction markets to operate in a truly professional and competitive fashion. 4.

Establish a study group to devise a policy on alternative marketing systems. e.g. Canadian Wheat Board. $ 5. Police both packer and chain store mark -ups. If these amendments were made we could see that a start was being made to create a truly equitable marketing system. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention some of my own observations. The cattle population has dropped drastically in our area in the last few years due to poor prices and a complete mistrust of the present marketing system.

The sad part that we see in the cattle herd �isappearance is that marginal land is now not used, or is misused. We see land that could pasture cattle being broken and turned into grain land that is marginal at best. We see sloughs being �rained and brush bul ldozed that is altering irreversibly the moisture retention abilities of our land. We see soil eroding from rolling land that should be sown to grass. These are things that any thinking and feeling farmer must be concerned about. As a committee, it would be fair for you to ask, "What does this have to do with Bill 25?" Farmers �re not stupid.

If given a decent return from their cattle herds, they will do the right thing in terms of land management. If the system does not provide adequate returns, then they will turn to short-term solutions to save their income. This will be done in spite of long-term harmful effects. 1 charge you then with the resp onsibility to make sure that laws are enacted that will �id the farmer and not hinder him. All of which is respectfully submitted on behalf of National Farmers Union, Local 516." 173

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 19 78 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr . Proven. Will you submit to questions from members of thi: com mittee? MR. PROVEN: The phrase "submit" sort of bothers me; it bothered me last night. I will stand hen and try and answer questions, but submit, I'm not quite sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it my choice of words, but I think you know the meaning. MR. PROVEN: Yes, I understand your meaning, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Driedger, ple ase. MR. DRIEDGER: Mr. Proven, you are a cattle operator right now? MR. PROVEN: Yes, I am. MR.

DRIEDGER: How many head do you market per year? MR. PROVEN: That has been an interesting question and you have had a variety of answers, have noticed . I won't beat around the bush. I have a 40 cow-calf herd and I feed normally 20 tc 30 calves a year. MR. DRIEDGER: Thank you, that's all. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions for this witness? Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: In your submission, you are indicating total opposition to this kind of legislation, bu· you conclude with the observation or the suggestion that should this legislation be proceeded with that it should be amended to some degree.

I raise the question with you of whether it is first o all proper for a government to pass a law which would set up or establish a farm organization in which farmers would, by law, have to participate? As a matter of principle, even with the amendments that you suggest, do you think it would be right for a government to move in thi� way? MR. PROVEN: I am not opposed to a government acting in accord with the wishes of produc ers If 50 plus 1 percent of the producers ask for a marketing board type of situation, I could suppor1 that. MR.

USKIW: Then let me pursue it, because you qualified your answer by suggesting that you woulc support a marketing board. MR. PROVEN: I will qual ify that further then by saying that in terms of politic al reality, I feel tha1 a marketing board is closer than what I would actually like to see, which would be a national meal authority. MR. USKIW: Let me try to get at the substance of my question. You are indicating that you would support a marketing board if 50 percent-plus of the farmers wanted one.

My line of questioning has to do with whether it is right that any government move to establish an association such as Bill 25, even if 100 percent of the producers wanted it, given the fact that, (

a) it is sponsored by the government; (

b) it has no provision for appeal of the decisions of such an associat ion, as does, indeed, marketing legislation under The Natural Producets Marketing Act. In other words, there are no built-in safeg uards for public protection in this bill and therefore, even if you had a referendum and every producer voted for it, do you think it is right to introduce such a measure? MR. PROVEN: I cannot agree with Bill 25 at al l. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions for this witness? Mr. Einarson. MR. EINARSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Proven, you state in your brief here - Mr . Mayer's and Mr.

Ellison 's names are mentioned - and you seem to com pare them with the government in this province. Are you saying, and do I understand you, that you don't trust the government of the present day? 174

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 1978 MR. PROVEN: I did not say that in my presentation. MR. EINARSON: Mr . Chairman, I would like to read then: "l t is our observation that when you hear Charlie Mayer or Tom Ellison speak, you are hearing the words and thoughts of the packers. In fact, their credibility is so low that we treat them like the government. " When you say "the gove rnment, " are you speaking of the government of the present day? MR. PROVEN: I am not speaking of any particular government; I am speaking of government.

As you may understand, farmers have a feel ing that when a government rec ommends you sow 25 milli on acres of wheat, you imm ediately go out and sow 25 million acres of rapeseed . MR. EINARSON: Through you, Mr . Chairman, to the witness on the stand, as a farmer, 1 fully understand what you have just said. Now I would like to ask you, Mr. Proven, assuming that Bill 25 passes in its present form - in this legislation we are talking about the purpose of this legislation and I use one example of our grading standards . . . MR. PROVEN: Mr .

Chairman, if the other members are going to talk, I really can't concentrate on the question. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken. I would remind all members of this commit tee to bear in mind that we can only listen to one speaker at a time. Mr. Einarson. MR. EINARSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say I rated my comments with the witness who was listening to my comments and I appr eciate that. I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, with the fact that those who say they are opposed to this bill, and I am asking the witness, Mr .

Proven, when he says that he is opposed to this bill - I want to ask him, assuming that this bill becomes law, and assuming that one example, for instance, in the grading standards, under the

section where we deal with the pur pose of this bill, these matters are achieved by means of a checkoff. Also going from that step to the second step, and , Mr . Proven, since you are opposed to the bill, you are given the opportunity to allow yourself to not contribute to the funds for which the purpo se of this bill is intended - following that, Mr .

Proven, that you have not contributed to the fund, you are still being able to acquire the benefits from this fund, namely, say, impr oved standards in our grad ing of beef, and if, as you tell me, you are a farmer, you produce beef, you market beef in the City of Winnipeg or other places, are you tel ling me then that you are opposed to this bill, and the provisions are that you don't have to contribute to it, are you going to accept the benefits thereby for those who are already paying into the fund, under the purpo se of this bill? MR.

PROVEN: I think you are making a false assumption in the fact that Bill 25 could have any possible effect in aid ing me as a producer. I do not honestly feel that it can have any effect. If you are talking about $1 50,000 of checkoff money for grade standards to be changed, it would take 10 times that much in research money to have any effect at all. The Federal Government already is doing that and I just don't see what a provincial organization could do to facilitate any change. MR. EINARSON: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Proven ... Perhaps I should pose this question.

Do you agree that we, as beef produc ers in the Province of Manitoba, should have a united voice speaking on behalf of the producers marketing beef in the Province of Manitoba? MR. PROVEN: I do not believe that any one commodity organization is all powerful. I believe that one organization should speak for all farmers, because we have a common interest in feeding people. MR. EINARSON: You say that one organiza tion, Mr . Proven, should speak for all farmers. Then, what organization would you suggest should do that very job? MR.

PROVEN: The only organization that I can possibly suggest would be the National Farmers Union. MR. EINARSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam. 175

Standing Committee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 1978 MR. ADAM: Just on that very last point. If this bill becomes law, and you say that you shoul have an association that represents all farmers, would it be your intention to come to this MinistE or a subsequent Mi nister, perhaps in 19 81, requesting the government to establish a bill that woul be called "The Manitoba Farmers Associa tion"? MR. PROVEN: Yes, I could agree to that, but it would be under the auspices of the National Farmer Union ... MR.

ADAM: And it would have the same rights, the same rights as thisbill here No. 25, that woul have a checkoff on each and every 33,000 farmers in this province. MR. CHAIRMAN: Before Mr. Proven answers, I would remind all members that there is a substanti< amount of background noise here, various conversat ions going on between meers. I trust that w will treat all our witnesses with courtesy so that we can hear what they have to say. Mr. Proven, please. MR. PROVEN: I'm not quite sure that I understood your question, but I'll answer in terms the: I would want to answer.

I'm not opposed to farmers paying checkoff legislation for an organiza tion . I feel farmers shoul' pay for their own organiza tion. lt should be a voluntary, meership organiza tion . MR. ADAM: Yes, I understand that, but what I am saying is, what position would this governmen be in, or a subsequent gover nment, should any group come forward and demand and request simila legislation as being proposed now? What alternatives would a government have, in you opinion? MR. PROVEN: Somehow I'm not read ing you at all, in your question. MR.

ADAM: Well, I'm saying that the government is sponsoring a bill giving all these powers t' an associat ion. Let's presume that another association comes forward , in the disguise, the nam is disguised, not NFU, but The Manitoba Farmers Association with the same provisions in this bil this is what I'm asking; what alternative would the government of the day have, or this governmeni should such another request come forward now? What stand would they be able to take? Ther' is already a precedent being set here? MR. PROVEN: I would assume that they would be against this kind of bill. MR.

ADAM: Would they have to acqu iesce to that request, or do you think they would turn down? MR. · PROVEN: I would think they would turn it down. MR. ADAM: You think they would turn it down. In other words, they are playing favoritism hen in this, is that what you're saying? MR. PROVEN: Favoritism? Yo u'l l have to explain that further to me. MR. ADAM: Well, it has been quite established now that this is being sponsored by The Manitob; Beef Growers, and it has been dr afted by them, apparently, and it's quite obvious that that is when it comes from. MR. PROVEN: Yes, I'm not arguing with that. MR.

ADAM: So, I'm just concerned about what happens if this very overwhelming possibility tha in 19 81 there will be a change of gov ernment, and if a group comes forward requesting a simila bill, what should a government do? Accept another similar bill, or reject this one? MR. PROVEN: Reject this one and accept only what The National Farmers Union presents. MR. ADAM: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions for this witness? Thank you very much, Mr. Proven. The next name on the list is Bill Bajus; Brian Bajus; George Telford. Is George Telford present' 176

rudy Usick. Mr. Rudy Usick. Standing Committee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 1978 MR. RUDY USICK: Mr. Chairman, in addition to the brief that is being passed out by the clerk, I have an opening statement I have a few copies of that I would like you, as Mr. Chairman, to get and some other mem bers as far as it goes. I don't have that many copies of it. But there are a few things that I would like to say in general, just before I get into the brief itself. MR. CHAIRMAN: You have 30 minutes, Mr. Usick. MR. USICK: lt's one page, so it won't take very long.

The opening statement to the Agriculture Com mittee of the Manitoba Legislature. Mr. Chairman and honourable meers of the Manitoba Legislature: The main text of our brief, which was prepared some two weeks ago, will follow this opening statement we want to present at the present time. After sitting in on these hearings for several hours it appears that anyone who suggests amendments to Bill 25 is consider ed in favour of the principle of Bill 25 as such. We wish to make it clear from the outset that this assumption is inc orrect, and the following are some of our reasons: I.

In our opinion, if Bill 25 in its present form is presented to the cattle producers in a ref erendum it would be defeated by 80 percent to 90 percent of the cattlemen. 2. This bill, if brought in without a refer endum, will prove to be the most permanent, div isive element between cattlemen and cattl emen's organization that we have ever had. 3. lt is a complete fallacy to talk about one organization for cattlemen if this bill becomes law; for example, just look at what we have today, and what we will have tomo rrow, re cattle organizations:

(1) We have the MICP - The Manitoba Independent Cattle Producers Organization, that I represent here tonight - if this bill goes through I can see our organization gaining in strength.

(2) We have Manitoba Pool Elevators and its Livestock Division - no one is suggesting this will change with Bill 25. They will continue to speak on behalf of cattlemen any time they so desire.

(3) We have The National Farmers Union - Bill 25 will not put the NFU out of existence or mute their opinions. If anything, it will promote the need for a larger NFU.

(4) We have farm Co-operative Auction Markets like Ste. Rose and others, that speak and have an influence on various segments of the cattle industry, feeder cattle, feeder calves, stock cows, etc. Bill 25 will not change this.

(5) The Manitoba Federation of Agriculture - is now in existence and will no doubt continue whether we have Bill 25 or not and they will continue to speak on behalf of catt lemen.

(6) We have the Manitoba Cow-Calf Producers, who have virtually no members and have agreed to amalgamate with The Manitoba Beef Gr owers, who have indicated they will probably disband if Bill 25 goes into effect. This is not definite, however, because it has also been indicated that if their sup porters are not put in on the first provisional board, and if they are not re-elected in the farm elections, then they could see a definite reason to continue in existence. So what will we have achieved in Bill 25? At least six organizations now speak for the cattlemen in Manitoba.

For certain we will have six organizations in the future and maybe seven, the one that would be set up. How much truth is there in the assumption that we will have one voice for catt lemen? That, Mr. Chairman, is the opening statement and I would then like to get into the brief itself. Mr. Chairman and members, we want to thank you for the opportunity to make the viewpoints of our organiza tion, the Manitoba Independent Cattle Producers Associa tion, known to the Legislature.

We hope that in discussing Bill 25 and the proposal for a compul sory checkoff, with a government appointed board to be follo wed by a government law setting up a provincial cattle organiza tion, that you do not confuse the name of the new organization with our own. We are a demo cratic and independent organization of cattle producers in Manitoba. Why Bill 25? We strongly resent the setting up of a compu lsory cattle organization in Manitoba with a compul sory checkoff without a vote of cattle producers. We have had two producer votes involving beef checko ffs in Manitoba:

(1) In February, 19 74, with 7,27 1 producers registered and 5,747 ballots returned - 79 percent voted. We had 2,45 1 voting yes (43 percent) and 3,2 45 voting no (57 percent) to a checkoff of one-tenth of one percent on all cattle sales being sponsored by the Manitoba Beef Gr owers.

(2) In March, 19 77, with 14 ,952 produc ers registered and 12, 404 ballots returned - 83 percent voting - we had 2,82 1 voting yes (23 percent) and 9,445 voting no (77 percent) to a checkoff of 60 cents for slaughter cattle and 30 cents for slaughter calves to finance a total marketing board opera tion. lt can be argued that people voted yes or no for various reasons 177

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 1978 in 19 74 or 19 77, on these two proposals, but it cannot be disputed that the vast majority of cattlemer opposed both checko ffs. How can it be possible, in a free dem ocracy, to be confronted one yea1 later with a government proposal tor a third type of compu lsory checkoff of 25 cents per head or all cattle sales without a vote of producers? We therefore propose to the Honourable Members of the Legislature two things:

(1) That a select commit tee of MLAs of the Agricultural Comm ittee of the Manitoba Legislature hold public hearings over the summer recess and early tall and report back to the next session of the Manitoba Legislature their findings regard ing the cattlemen 's viewpoints on Bill 25 and the proposal tor a compulsor y checkoff and the formation of a compulsory cattlemen's associat ion.

(2) That

section 7(2)(

a) of Bill 25 be amended to read: "until the refer endum of eligible cattle produc ers is held on the merits of this entire bill and 50 percent plus one, or more, of the eligible producers voting thereon vote in the affirmative. I've entitled the next sect ion "Demo cratic Control by Cattle Producer s." We feel it inherent upon us to point out serious deficiencies in the present Bill 25 regard ing the initiation of the Act, the buildin g of the organizational structure via the admin istration by-law, and the appointment of a government board with wide powers. We propose the following amendments to im prove the demo cratic control by producers:

(1) Amend

Section 1(

e) to read as follows: "pr oducer means any person who raises or keeps cattle in Manitoba." The balance of this

Section to be deleted as it leaves the floodgates open to include everyone but cattle producers.

(2) Amend

Section 3(1) to strike out the words "appoint ed or." We do not see any necessity for a government appointed board, particularly when the Minister of Agricultur e has assured the Legislature that no by-law or tee deductions would be imp lemented until after the producers elect a board.

(3) Amend

Section 4 to read " The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall divide the province into" - and we put 12 electoral dis tricts and that can be subject to dis cussion here this evening - "with approximately the same number of cattle producers in each district, and shall be responsible tor the supervision of nominations and election of 12 bona fide cattle producers to hold office until re-elected or members are elected to take their plac e." And that will do away with any appointed board in the interim.

(4) Amend

Section 6(2) to strike it out in its entirety. We feel the Manitoba cattle produc ers can impose their own rest rictions on their own board of di rectors through their own admin istration by-law.

(5) Amend

Section 7(1) (

b) adding at the end "after the producer has assigned the deduction on each sale." I understand this is what Saskatchewan has now done after they've tried the proposal which is inherent in Bill 25. I other words, there is no need for any refunds or red tape. lt would then be a true voluntary deduction by produc ers as some now inti mate it is.

(6) Amend

Section 7(2)(

a) as already spelled out at the beginning of the brief, and 7(2)(

b) until the election of the memb ers of the association is held under the amended

Section 4.

(7) Amend

Section 11 (1) (b). "The election of the members of the association and fixing their term of office." By amending

Section 4, we will have democratic control of the organization by cattle producers from Day One.

(8) Amend

Section 11 ( 1) by adding an additional sect ion (j), "The calling of at least one annual provincial meeting of the membership each year with the date, notice and business to be transpired thereat, including reports of the board of di rectors, an annual audited financial statement and policy resol utions from the members hip." There is no provision in the bill tor an annual meeting and other matters thereon as spelled out in the proposed amendment.

(9) Amend

Section 11 (2) to add the following as subsection (b): "That the election of all provincial di rectors be by secret mail ballot of all producers in each district." We strongly believe that all producers should be involved at all levels in the democratic process. (1 0) Amend

Section 11 (3) as follows: "The Admin istration by-law may be repealed, amended or re-enacted by the affirmative vote of 50 percent plus one of those voting at any annual or special general meeting of the registered producers on a resol ution , notice of which has been mailed to each registered producer not less than 30 days before such meeting, setting forth, in the case of an amendment, the effect of the proposed change in the adminis tration by-law.

But where required notice of an amendment of an admin istration by-law has not been given, the vote of 66-2/3 of those voting on such resolution is required to appr ove the amendment ." This is normal dem ocratic procedure in any democratic organiza tion . Unanimous consent - which is in the bill - is tantamount to no provision for amendment at a provincial annual meeting. ( 11 ) Amend

Section 11 by adding a new

Section 4 titled Revocat ion of The Act. "Where the Association receives from its eligible membership, a request for the revocat ion of the Act, if it is satisfied that the producers requesting the revocat ion represent not less than 10 percent of them, of all the eligible producers designated in the Act, or admin istration by-law, as entitled to vote 178

Standing Commit tee On Agriculture Friday, July 14 , 19 78 the Association shall submit to a vote of the producers entitled to vote thereon, the matter of the revocat ion of the Act ." And No. 2: "The matter of the approval of such Act shall not again be subm itted to a vote of producers under the Act during the two years next following the date on which the vote on the Act is taken under subsection (1 )." No w, these guarantees for dem ocratic control are now in existence under Manitoba law, regulation No.

M-20-R-1, passed September 9, 19 67 - which is by a former Conservative government - to cover conditions under The Natural Products Marketing Act, and we feel that that kind of amendment is the very least that we require in Bill 25. All of which is respectfu lly presented on behalf of the Manitoba Independent Cattle Produc ers Organiza tion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Usick. Will you submit to questions from members of the Commi ttee? MR. USICK: Yes, I will. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ferguson. MR. FERGUSON: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr .

Uskiw - or Usick, I'm sorry. -(Interject ion)- Well, the names are so close together I guess you can be excused for MR. USKIW: You could have tried Uruski, too. MR. FERGUSON: Wel l, the three. But in any event, we are certainly glad to have you out and voicing your opinion. But here agai n, you are representing the Independent Cattle Producers Association, and my first question to you, Mr. Usick, would be, what percentage of the cattle herd of Manitoba do you feel that your organization represents? MR. USICK: Well, I'm not sure we've worked out a percentage as such.

We do not disclose our membership, so therefore I would say I would probably decline to answer that question as such. I do know that we represent as many cattle producers as probably any of the other organizations that now speak for the cattle producers. MR. FERGUSON: Do you believe, then, that there should be one organization to represent the cattle producers in Manitoba? MR.

USICK: Well, there is no possibility of that happening under Bill 25, or any other bill, unless you chose to di ssolve the organizations like the Manitoba Pool Elevators, the Manitoba Federation of Agriculture, the Manitoba Independent Cattle Producers, the National Farm Union. If you - and I suppose you do have the power, if you so chose to use it - that if you chose to di sband all of these six organizations that I mentioned in my opening statements, that you could then propose a bill and set up one organiza tion.

But the suggestion that this bill is in effect setting up one cattle organization is a complete fallacy. There is no truth to that statement whatsoever, and it will be very apparent within six months or a year, or following this bill, when you will have six or seven voices speaking on behalf of the catt lemen!. MR. FERGUSON: Then do you belie ve that somewhere along the line that there should be a checkoff on the cattle producers to finance an organiza tion? MR. USICK: Well, certainly, I've been in organ izat ions for over a generation.

I started speaking on behalf of farm organiza tions back in 19 52, and I've been involved in organizational structur es, in sett ing up of constitutions and admin istration by-laws and all the rest of it, and I know that one of the most pressing needs in organizations certainly is finances; there's no question about that. And the wider support you can get off producers to an organization, the better off you are.

But to im pose such a condition on producers without their consent, and having already six voices speak ing on behalf of cattlemen is, in my estima tion, as I said, probably one of the most permanent and divisive elements that can be introduced into the organizational structure in Manitoba, and probably can do more harm in the long term than anything possibly the mem bers of the Legislature could dream up. And therefore, to that extent, unless the producers themselves are reques ting it and vote thereon, I'm afraid I couldn't support a proposal to im pose such a settlement on producers.

I think the producers themselves have to be involved in that particular type of condition. 179

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 1978 MR. FERGUSONI: Well then, Mr . Usick, did you ever personally sign a document rec ommendin� a compu lsory checko ff on all cattle marketed? MR. USICK: A compuls ory checkoff?. MR. FERGUSON: Yes. Did you ever, yourself? MR. USICK: Well, I'm not sure just what you are meaning when you're talking MR. FERGUSON: Would you like me to jog your memory then, Mr. Usick? MR. USICK: Yes, ple ase do. MR.

FERGUSON: Did you ever then, sign a commission of inquiry report and advisory commit tee which rec ommended financing of a beef organization by a compuls ory checko ff on all cattle marketed? MR.USICK: We submitted a report that recommended that that type of organizational structure be set up, and follo wed by a vote of producers so that we would have in effect produc ers supporting that kind of setup. MR. FERGUSON: But you personally signed a document to that effect? MR. USICK: I signed a report that included quite a number of recommendations.

I wouldn't say that it was only set up for a com puls ory organiza tion; it wasn't an organ ization at all. We were talking in terms of setting up a marketing board. MR. FERGUSON: Then might I ask why you have changed in mids tream, whereby at one time that you felt that it should be a compuls ory checko ff and now, all of a sudden, you feel that it shouldn't be. MR. USICK: Well, there are a lot of people MR. FERGUSON: You signed a document. MR. USICK: No. MR. FERGUSON: Oh, yes you did. MR. USICK: A marketing board is not a farm organiza tion.

A marketing board is set up basically to im prove the marketing structure, which needs substantial changes, and anyone who suggests that a marketing board is a farm organization is incorrect. And there are a lot of people who, when they talk about marketing boards and talk about farm organ izations, seem to infer that they are one and the same thing; in my estimation they are quite different. MR. FERGUSON: Then, Mr. Usick, you are quite aware of the fact that the Provisional Board, which is some thing that is always established in any ...

To my knowledge in poli ,ics, a provisional board has always been established by the government by Order-in-Council to regulate such by-laws, whatever may be required, then an elected board takes over, and the bill also states, that the Provisional Board will have no power whatsoever to levy a fee or do anything else. They will have no power until such time as they are elected, and when they are elected, then they will lay down the rules and regulations which will govern the body.

Now, you have made a statement that there will be no representat ion, but there will be no problem whatever either, until that elected board is in place. MR. USICK: Oka y, can I answer? You have about three questions now; could I answer a couple of them before you ask any more? MR. FERGUSON: Certainly. MR. USICK: Or I'm going to forget some of the first question. First of all, you said you have never heard of a government proposal or any kind of a proposal where you didn't have a provisional board. 180

Standing Committee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 19 78 MR. FERGUSON: Estab lishment of a board by govern ment. MR. USICK: Yes, before a board went into effect. MR. FERGUSON: Right. MR. USICK: The last vote that we had of producers, in 19 77, had explicit in it that there would be no appointed board by the gove rnment. lt was explicit that from Day One if the marketing board would have carried, that the board would first be elected by producers, there would be no interim board. So I dis agree with you that there has never been any provision for such a condition. MR.

FERGUSON: lt wasn't elected either, was it, the vote didn't carry? MR. USICK: Well, the provision did not carry and therefore there were no elections, but the proposal was there. That's No. 1. Numb er 2, you're saying that in this bill, in Bill 25, there is no provision for the provisional board to make use of any of the conditions in Bill 25, but I would submit to you, sir, as I said, I've been involved in farm organization from the ground up.

I've been involved in organizations that have started from scratch; I've bear. involved in consiiiuiioros, seiiing them up; I was involved for two years with a proposal for amalgamating the Farm Union with the Federat ion, all the rest ... MR. FERGUSON: We're quite aware of that. MR. USICK: All right. The most im portant thing in the setting up of any organization is the constitution or the basis of the organization and the administration by-law is one of the most impo rtant things because this, in effect, sets up the organization.

Now the whole adminis tration by-law is not going to be set up, not going to be one voice in there by any elected cattle producers. lt will be done entirely by the appointed board. And not only is it going to be done entir ely by an appointed board, but the provisions in the Act, which are not subject to amendment by the produc ers but only subject to amendment by mem bers of the Legislature, which is quite a difference, will mean that it will be almost im possible to amend that Act.

We've already said in our brief that the provisions now in the Act say that you have to have notice to all producers 30 days ahead of time and then 60 percent vote. That's what is in the bill, if you want to amend the Act. Now how many producers are going to be in a position to send out a letter, presumably a registered letter - how else are you sure you are going to get it out - to all the producers in Manitoba before you want to make an amendment?

And if you don't do that provision under this same Act of the Legislature, if it carries, the only other way you can amend it is to bring it in at the annual meeting by unanimous consent of all people there. So it only takes one person to stand up who is opposed and the admin istration by-law cannot be amended. Now you're suggesting that the provisional board will have no powers. I would say that the provisional board have all the powers of setting up the kind of organization that is going to be im posed on us. MR. FERGUSON: Mr.

Usick, I think you are quite aware of the fact that, under the terms of this present bill that the provisional board, their basic function would be to arrive at an honest voters list designated to give the cattle producers of the province a vote, the province would be split into 12 or 14 - your brief says 12, the projected is 14 - that ... MR. USICK: Alberta has seven. They have three times the cattle population that we have. MR. FERGUSON: Wel l, that may be, whatever it is may be fair ball, but we're dividing the province basically under the bill into 14 areas.

The provisional board, their basic function would be to lay out an honest, as 1 said, an hones voters list which might not be comparable to one we had in 19 77, and whatever other rules would have to be established to get the show on the road. Consequently, 1 think that you're putting quite a lot of window dressing on your statements that this particular board would have that much say. I don't really think that they would have; they would have say to get the particular bill in force, get it operative, and then consequently the elected board would carry on with the regulations and whatever else may be required.

MR. USICK: Wel l, I concentrated on the administration by-law, Mr . Ferguson, and I think if you were to check

Section 11 (1) of Bill 25, it says: "that within three months after com ing into force 181

Standing Committee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 1978 of this Act, the association shall pass an admin istration by-law which shall provide for ... " all o these things. Now, in all the discussions I've ever heard of in the election of producers, at one time they were talking about 19 80, another time they were talking about 19 79, but certainly a long time after three months, the people who would set up the admin istration by-law - which is the whole constituti on, the whole set up of the organization - would be done by an appointed board and then they would provide in

an Act of Parliament, which is not subject to amendment by the producers, an almost im possible situation to amend it. I maintain, and in my experience in farm organization and constitutions and amendments of same, that that is one of the most imp ortant controls of the entire organization that the Minister or the government or the appointed board can make withou1 any say or without any control by producers, and once put into effect, almost impossible to amend. We take very strong exception to that aspect of it. MR. FERGUSON: Mr. Uskiw, are you a cattle producer? MR. USICK: Yes, I am. I have been all my life. MR.

FERGUSON: Cow-calf? MR. USICK: Cow-calf and finishing cattle. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Uskiw on a point of order. MR. USKIW: For the purpose of not fudging the record, would you ask the Member for Gla dstone to correct his add ress to the witness. MR. FERGUSON: Well, there are three names all the same. MR. USKIW: No, I'm sorry, the record will show who is asking the question and who is answering and the Member for Gl adstone is attempting to fudge the record because he is not happy with the evidence that he is receiving from this witness, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Ferguson, would you please correct your slip of the tongue. MR. FERGUSON: Mr. Chairman, if I made a slip of the tongue, I certainly will apologize and I cert ainly will withdraw. Well, I certainly wouldn't have wanted to ask Mr. Uskiw the question I'm asking Mr. Usick because I know very well with Mr. Uskiw, I certainly wouldn't get an answer at all. Thank you very much for your answer, Mr. Usick. I'm all thro ugh. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Einarson. MR. EINARSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Usick, you are a member of the Manitoba Independent Cattle Producers Association? MR. USICK: Yes, I am. MR.

EINARSON: What is your membership? MR. USICK: You mean the fee, or what? MR. EINARSON: No, what is the total number of farmers? MR. USICK: We don't make our membership public. MR. EINARSON: You don't make it public. MR. USICK: No. MR. EINARSON: Would you like to elaborate why you don't want to make it public? MR. USICK: Well, we have our reasons. 182

Standing Committee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 1978 MR. EINARSON: Is that your answer, you have your reasons ... MR. USICK: Yes, I do. MR. EINARSON: . . . but you don't want to elaborate why you don't want to make it public? MR. USICK: Well, let me ... MR. EINARSON: Are you telling me that you are ashamed that you are a mem ber of the Manitoba Independent Cattle Produc ers Asso ciation? MR. USICK: No, by a long way not. MR. EINARSON: Okay. I would like to ask you why? MR. USICK: I would suggest to you that few, if any, cattle organizations or other organizations in Manitoba make their membership publi c.

If you would ask the Manitoba Beef Gr owers, for example - I wasn't here when they presented their brief - I doubt if you asked that question, or if you did, if you got an answer from them. MR. EINARSON: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to Mr . Rudy Usick, I believe - and I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong - but I believe the question was asked of the Beef Gr owers, of the Farmers Union, that question was asked and I believe they ga ve an answer. However, that be as it may, Mr . Chairman, I'm not going to press the point. I would like to ask Mr. Usick another question.

How long has the Manitoba Independent Cattle Producers Association been in operation? MR. FERGUSON: We had that mean bastard in Sam's office. MR. USICK: That is incorr ect and a deli berate slur by the Mem ber for Gl adstone. That has been cleared up for a long time passed and I don't think, Mr. Chairman, I came here to be ridiculed or lies be made on the floor of an agricultural comm ittee of the House which is absolutely incorrect. MR. EINARSON: Mr.

Chairman, on the point of order, I want to say here at this commit tee that I am the one who is presenting the question and anything that is made on this mike is what is being recorded and anything that I say is recorded; anything that the witness says will be record ed. At least I hope that's the way it will be. So, Mr . Chairman, ... MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, the Member for Rock Lake knows fully that the record ing devices pick up all of the voices regardless of whether they are officially spoken or otherwise, so the witness is quite right in reprimanding the Member for Gladstone. MR.

EINARSON: On the same point of order, I don't think that the Member for Lac du Bonnet has any point of order when he makes that comment. MR. USKIW: You 're not the Chairman. MR. EINARSON: All right, Mr . Chairman, that's fine. I am now going to repeat my question to Mr. Usick and ask him if he can tell me how long has the Manitoba Independent Cattle Producers Association been in existence' when were they formed? MR.

RUDY USICK: Well, we were formed approxim ately a month and a half before the last vote on the beef marketing board came into existence. lt was formed in the Strathclair area by a group of farmers in that area, unbeknown to myself or others. They called a public meeting. They wanted to have someone support the position for a marketing board, debate for a vote was starting and they wanted to have some type of represen tation. So they called a meeting in the Strathclair Auction Mart . lt was a very stormy night. They asked one of the members of the Beef Gr owers to attend.

He did not show up, the farmers had their own meeting, and they dis cussed the position. lt appeared that there was no organization that was taking a strong stand in favour of the marketing board and they decided to do something about it that evening. Subsequent to that, they called a further meeting the following week in Elphinstone. They invited myself to attend because of my association on the Inquiry Commis sion in Manitoba. They had various 183

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 1978 questions there and the organization really started in Elphinstone offi cially. A name was put on it. Memberships were taken and it started from that point on. So the organization started, in effect, before I became involved in it. Following that 1 was also in a position where I had taken a strong stand on marketing boards over a period of some 25 years. I felt that the truth was not com ing out in some of the meetings that had been held and I became involved in the organization. I wasn't Chairman.

I was just one of the di rectors, and at their next annual meeting I was elected President. MR. EINARSON: Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Usick for his answer. it's a lengthy one. I still haven't had an answer to my question. I would like to know when was the Manitoba Independent Cattle Produc ers Association formed. As far as the witness is concerned, he said that he became involved - he did not give me any definite date - whether it's a year or six months, or two years. MR. USICK: Well, it's approximately a year and a half now. MR. EINARSON: Approximately a year and a half. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That's what I wanted to know. He has been in operation for appr oxim ately a year and a half. Then, Mr. Chairman, from the comments the witness has just made, you are strongly a believer of marketing boards. Is that correct, Mr. Usick? MR. USICK: Me, myself, as an individual? MR. EINARSON: Yes. MR. USICK: Yes, I might say I have not only supp orted marketing boards; I have worked tor them in the sense that I would like to see more of them. I do have some reservat ions in that regard. I am particularly in favour of producer marketing boards. There are, as you know, various types of marketing boards. MR.

EINARSON: Well, in other words, Mr. Chairman, to you Mr. Usick, we are talking about one particular commodity in agriculture and that's the beef industry. MR. USICK: And you're talking about Bill 25. MR. EINARSON: Well, listen, Bill 25 pertains to the beef industry in the Province of Manitoba, no other commodity; let's get that straight. I'm asking you, then, Mr. Usick, do you feel that the beef industry should be brought under a marketing board? Do I understand you correctly? I just want to make sure that I understand you on all your comments. MR.

USICK: Well, we had a vote, as you know, on the marketing board and the producers chose not to put one into effect at the present time. And I am prepared to accept that position of the producer. lt wo n't stop me from continuing to work in that regard, but, at the same point, we did have a vote and I think the most important thing that we should remember with Bill 25 is that there is no provision in these amendments tor a vote of producers, neither before the bill comes into effect nor after it comes into effect.

In other words, it will be im posed on us by a government law and after it's im posed we will not be able to get rid of it, outside of changing the government, I suppo se, and if that's the last resort that's kind of an odd way to make dem ocracy work, that we have to have a complete change of government to change a law that has passed. MR. EINARSON: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Usick you have presented a brief on behalf of the Manitoba Independent Cattle Producers Association and in this brief there is no signa ture.

You don't have your sig nature, nor do you have any offi cial person of the Manitoba Independent Cattle Producers Asso ciation. So I must ask you how authentic is this brief. MR. USICK: The Clerk passed the brief around to the Chairman.

I certainly have always signed briefs that 1 presented and if the Chairman will present the brief that he has, I think as Chairman on behalf of the Comm ittee 1 cer tainly will sign that brief and make it authentic to satisfy your position. 1 have always signed every brief that I have ever presented and I fully intended to but I did not pass the brief out to the Chairman in this case. MR. EINARSON: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. 184

Standing Committee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 19 78 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions to this witness? Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Yes, Mr . Chairman, I want to raise the que stion of principle again with respect to Bill 25, the same question that has been put to virtually every witness that has appeared so far, that is, do you accept as a matter of principle the idea of a government enacting legislation for the establishment of an associat ion, whatever that association is? We're not talking about cattle here; it can be any association.

And I raise that question in the context of our historical position, that private associa tions have been brought into existence, historically speaking, through a private member's bill intr oduced in the Legislature and not sponsored by a government bill, which carries the authority of the state. So that in essence in a private member's bill the mem bers of the Legislature are free to vote as they wish and therefore the government is a neutral party to that proposition, whether it passes or not.

I ask you whether you belie ve that it's right to break that longstanding tradition through the introduction of Bill 25 in the name of a Mi nister of the Crown. MR. USICK: Well, I didn't look at it quite in that manner.

I have been party to delegations to governments over a period of a generation or more, and in various delegations there have been proposals exp ressed to Liberal, Con servative and NDP Governments talking about a fee deduction or a fee on behalf of an organization And one of the respon ses that I ha.ve always heard from all governments - past Conservative Governments, past Liberal and NDP Governments - is that when an organiza tion, any organiza tion, would speak on behalf of the majority of the producers then they might be in a position to come to government and ask for a tee deduction on behalf of all the producers.

And even then, it would be some question of whether or not they would receive it. Certainly, although we do not make our membership public to Mr. Einarson or anyone else, we readily admit that we do not represent the majority of cattlemen and we know that no other organization represents the majority of cattlemen in this province. Therefore, we find it quite odd that we have got a government proposal to set up an organi zation to collect fees from everyone in the province, on a compul sory basis. MR.

USKIW: Well, again, it leaves me in somewhat of a quandary as to the principle of the procedure that was used by the govern ment. To highlight the point I'm making, would you agree that the Government of Manitoba, on request from the Manitoba Federation of Labour, that a bill similar to Bill 25 be passed, naming the Federation of Labour of Manitoba as an organization representing all workers in Manitoba, and that that organization have the powers that are now contained in Bill 25, over the emplo yees - all emplo yees in Manitoba, and the emplo yers? Do you think that that would be right? MR.

USICK: No, I think there would be a great deal of opposition, particularly from farmers, and even in the labour ranks, from that kind of a proposal. And as we have already said in our opening statem ent, we are not in favour of Bill 25 as it is presently constituted, and we are convinced, from the meetings that we held this spring and the meetings that we've had in the province, that 80 to 90 percent of the produc ers, if given an opportunity in a refer endum, and setting up the refer endum on the bill as it is now in printed form, 80 to 90 percent of the producers would defeat it, without any question.

So, I can only say that I wouldn't supp ort that type of principle for the Federation of Labour or anything else, because I'm not in favour of it in Bill 25 either. Bill 25 needs some very drastic changes, but the first and most impo rtant of which is that it should be given to the producers for a vote.

Any suggestion in a democratic country such as we are living in - and we have had two votes and cattle refer endums for deductions - to put in a deduction without a vote of producers is, as we said, one of the most divisive elements, and permanent divisive elements, that we can possibly introduce into the Province of Manitoba. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, you were on the Manitoba Marketing Board for a number of years, involved in the supervision of marketing boards that existed in Manitoba at that period of time. MR. USICK: Yes. MR. USKIW: Boards and Commissions.

Is it correct , would my recollection be accurate, that when we had votes tor the establishment of marketing boards, which contained powers that im posed obligations, responsibilities, and denied in fact some freedoms of the people on the passage of those Acts, that there were campaigns on the part of many people, arguin g that those were basic denials of their freedom and their rights, even though they had a chance to vote on that question? 185

Standing Commit tee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 1978 MR. USICK: Oh, yes. MR. USKIW: Would those arguments be logically presented to Bill 25 as it is now exp ressed before you? MR. USICK: Even more so, because there are more things than just basic treedoms. I mean, the very first and most basic is that the producers are not asking for this bill.

The bill is being im posed on them by legislation, without a vote, and many of the people that have- so-called freedom fighters, or people who say that they want freedom of choice - certainly, I can't see how any of those same type of people can support this type of proposal. And at one point or another, if this does go through, at some point in time they're going to be asked to defend that particular position. MR.

USKIW: Should the government proceed with Bill 25 and it becomes law in a short period of time, how does your organization propose to deal with the tact that the government will recognize only this assoc iation as being the spokesman for cattlemen in Manitoba? MR. USICK: Well, of course, if we have any government that propo ses to say that one person speaks for cattlemen and another one doesn't, they have to live with that particular decision. I can't see how they can take that position, because we're not setting up one cattle organizati on.

I made it very clear, it's a complete fallacy to talk about one cattle organization by .Bill 25. We now have six cattle organizations in the province, and we probably will have seven when this bill goes through. MR. USKIW: Are you, sir, aware that the government position and arguments on second read ing are that when Bill 25 is passed , that it will unity the cattlemen, that all cattlemen will participate in the elections, elect a board of di rectors, and do as the majority of cattlemen want, and therefore it will be a democratic process in effect ulti mately? Are you aware that those arguments were presented?

MR. USICK: No, I must say that I'm not. MR. USKIW: And therefore, the government would be obliga ted to recogn ize this association as the association speaking for all cattlemen in Manitoba. MR. USICK: Wel l, all I can say is the government would be very wrong in taking that attitude. MR. USKIW: Wel l, they have stated that that is the way they see .this bill evolving in second read ing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ferguson. MR. USICK: Well, Mr. Chairman, this whole bill -(Interjection)- Now, I dr ove a ... MR. CHAIRMAN: As I perceive it, the questioning was completed and the answer was MR.

USICK: No, I wasn't finished the answer. I was starting to say, because the question referred to what dis cussion happened in the Manitoba Legislature, and whether I knew of it or not, and I was going to say that this bill is being brought in at one of the most busy seasons for cattlemen. The question of putting up the hay - and putting up the .hay is very necessary in Manitoba - and there are a lot of people who do not even know that Bill 25 is in the Manitoba Legislature, a gr eat deal of cattlem en.

I have spoken to a number of cattlemen in the last few days and they're certainly not aware that Bill 25 is in the Legislature, or what is in Bill 25. And there will be a lot more evident opposition if this type of legislation is pushed through at a busy time of year when they are not in a position to make their voice heard, and I know that people who have wanted to present briefs are having a great deal of difficulty in taking the time to come to this particular hearing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ferguson. MR. FERGUSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only have a couple of very brief questions. Mr .

Usick - I've got it straight this tim e, Mr. Usick - you are a very firm proponent of the marketing board system, is that correct? 186

Standing Commit tee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 19 78 MR. USICK: I have suppor ted it over the years. MR. FERGUSON: Would you go so tar as to be a suppl y-management proponent also? MR. USICK: In some cases, not always. MR. FERGUSON: I see. I understand that you are involved in the rearing and harvesting of trout in your area; would you go so far then as to say that all of the fish harvested in the Minnedosa-Erickson area should be marketed through the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board? MR. USICK: Through the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board? MR. FERGUSON: Yes. MR.

USICK: Wel l, there is provision for that marketing now; people can make use of it if they so desire, and some of them have on occasion. MR. FERGUSON: But would you go so tar as to say that your belief would be that you would lik e to see the fish from that area, in this local enterprise, marketed through the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board? MR. USICK: Well, of course, if it was done, it would probably increase the price.

The price, because it is you might say a rare product in the province - there are only a limit ed number of freshwater lakes that are suitable tor trout production, and the question of a qual ity production out of such lakes is ... you know, there's a limited area for the expansion of same. The market is slightly disru pted now by people charging different prices at different levels, and probably if it was co-ordinated, the price could be raised considerably, although myself, in the fish I have sold, I have always had a quality product. I have never had any problem in disposing of same, at a fair price.

I would say a much better price than I have been getting in cattle; in tact, two or three years ago I seriously consider ed going entir ely out of cattle, and by the way, no one has ever asked me if I am even in cattle production tonight, which is strange. MR. FERGUSON: Yes, I did ask you. MR. USICK: Just if I was in production. MR. FERGUSON: No, I asked you . . . MR. USICK: But I've noticed that most of the witnesses they've asked, how many cattle, and so on.

But 1 seriously thought of going out of cattle and going entirely into trout farming, because when 1 had choice animals, and I had dif ficulty in getting 35 cents a pound, and at the same time I could get $1 .50 and $2.00 a pound tor trout, and no difficulty at all, it certainly made one wonder. MR. FERGUSON: Would you not agree then, Mr . Usick, that if, as all of the arguments that you are proposing here, that this thing is so undesirable, do you nat feel that if it is so undesiraule, that all the cattle produc ers have to do is cut off the funding and opt out, and the thing will fall flat on its face?

Now, what is all the fuss and turor about? If it isn't going to work, given a trial period of 18 months, and if it doesn't work out, all anyone has to do, any cattle producer has to do, is opt out. There will be no funding and consequently the thing will be all over. 187

A MEMBER: That's not true. Standing Committee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 1978 MR. FERGUSON: Mr. Chairman, it certainly is true. MR. USICK: Let me answer that question, Mr. Chairman, because I've heard this question in the last couple of evening, and I think some members of the MLAs are operating under a fallacy in that regard, too. The most important thing in the organization is the administration by-law; that's the most impo rtant thing in it, because that sets up the organization. And that administration by-law is being set up by a government-appointed board - nothing to do with producers.

Now, 1 have an admin istration by-law that has been proposed for this organization. I've had this by-law for several months, long before this bill came in, by the proponents for this legislation. They didn't even know what the organization or Bill 25 was going to call it; they didn't know it was going to be called the Manitoba Cattle Produc ers Assoc iation. They called it The Cattle Produc ers Act, and maybe you've seen that adminis tration by-law; that's one thing. No. 2, when the Manitoba Beef Gr owers had their last annual meeting - and this is the Manitoba Co-Operator, Page 12 of the March 9th issue.

I want to read one of the motions that they passed at their meeting to deal with the very fact that you suggested. "Some delegates to the Brandon meeting expressed fears, however, that a heavy run on refunds could result in financial emba rrassment to the Associa tion, and a resolution was passed urging that the refunds be applied for on a quar terly basis." Every three months.

"This would not mean that the money would have to be refunded quarterly, but that those opting out of the plan will have to notify their wish for return of the money every three months." And later on, it also says, that the money would not be refunded until six months after the year end. So what you can put in that admin istration by-law can make it almost impo ssible for people really to opt out, and when they do opt out, basically we have the average producer in Manitoba marketing a small number of cattle.

We have a select group of people in the province, mostly feedlot operators that market a large number of cattle, but if you took the total number of cattle marketed in the province, and the total number of producers, what do you have? 20 or 30 as probably the average number of cattle that are marketed by all the producers in the province?

Now, if you set up a refund system as they have already passed in their annual meeting, and they have already drafted it in an admin istration by-law some months ago, and if you suggest to a person who markets 20 head of cattle - and that might be the average; it might be less - that he's going to have to apply every three months.

And if we're talking about five head of cattle, for example, that he markets every three months, and he's going to have to send the 14 -cent stamp - and he's going to have to do it within that three months or he would lose his elegibil ity to get it dur ing that three months. -(Interjection)- You're tal king about a lot of small producers who would be excluded because (

a) they would not even know that they could apply for the refund, (

b) that they might have to apply for it on a three-month basis or some other kind of system that the adminis tration by-law would bring in MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Mr. Usick. MR. USICK: And the suggestion therefore that people can just opt out - they can opt out if you would take the amendment that we are proposing, and we have already spelled out under No. 5 on Page 2, we are suggesting amending

Section 7(1) (b), adding at the end, "after the producer has assigned the deduction on each sale. " And that's exactly what Saskatchewan has now done. No need for any refunds or red tape; it would be a true, voluntary deduction by producers, as some now intima te it is. it's not a voluntary organization now; it's a compu lsory organization, with the funds kept for a year and maybe six months after the year end. Compl etely compu lsory in every respect, and God only knows what kind of a system our admini stration by-law will be brought in by the provisional board. MR. FERGUSON: Mr .

Usick, thank you very much for the very brief answer. Under threat of another speech, I think that possibly you are coming through with some preconceived ideas of what the regulations may be. They, of course, will be up to the elected board and here again ... MR. USICK: The provisional board, as I understand it, it is being brought in by the provisional board' not the elected board. MR. FERGUSON: That is correct.

As we are mentioning the Saskatchewan organization whereby the Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan saw fit to take over the adminis tration of the funds, this of course goes against our philosophy whereby we would like to have some of the adminis tration of the funds and the collecti on, etc., and the election of the officials involved in this particular Act, 188

Standing Committee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 19 78 be done by the people and not haie any of the heavy hand of govern ment coming in and saying that all of the sudden if you do have $1 00,000 we will introduce a bill, which I think in Saskatchewan was Bill 73, whereby Mr.

Kaeding took over the administration of the fund, we here are qui te confident, and I think our Conservative Government here is qui te confident that the elected offi cials will be qui te compenent to handle the money collected, and they will do it in a very honest and straig htforward manner and I'm sure to the benefit of the cattle producers in Manitoba. I don't think I have anything more to say. Mr. Usick, thank you very much for your answers, and that is the end of my questi oning. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two questions for Mr. Usick.

Were you a member of a beef inquiry in Manitoba that was held in the past few years? MR. USICK: From 19 74 to 19 76? MR. DOWNEY: That's correct. MR. USICK: Yes. MR. DOWNEY: Were you under oath on that particular inquiry? MR. USICK: Was I under oath? MR. DOWNEY: Yes. MR. USKI W: Mr . Chairman, I raise a question of order, Sir. I may be wrong, but as I recall it' unless you can correct me otherwise, I thought I was the next speaker after Mr. Ferguson. MR. CHAIRMAN: On my list, I have Mr . Ferguson, then Mr. Downey, then Mr. Gour lay, then Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Okay. MR.

DOWNEY: I asked you a question, sir, were you under oath? MR. USICK: We took an oath of office to look into the matters of inquir y when we were first appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor. Following that time, we then became members of the inquir y and we took members who appeared before us, under oath. I think that is, as I understand, the situation. MR. DOWNEY: Would you agree that the majority of farmers in Manitoba receive The Manitoba Co-operator newspaper? MR. USICK: The majority of them? MR. DOWNEY: Yes. MR. USICK: I believe that would be true. MR.

DOWNEY: Are you aware that some several weeks ago, Bill 25 in its entirety was printed in The Manitoba Co-operator? MR. USICK: Wel l, if it was, I didn't see it. MR. DOWNEY: I think the record of The Manitoba Co-operator and of many farm people can verify - and 1 can provide a copy of it, not im media tely, but I could, for the commit tee - that it was printed in The Manitoba Co-operator. Have you received this week's edition of The Manitoba Co-operator.? MR. USICK: Yes, I have. MR. DOWNEY: Would you be able to remember what was on the headlines of this week's Manitoba 189

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 19 78 Co-operator? MR. USICK: Something about Bill 25 being referred to the Agriculture Committee. MR. DOWNEV: That is correct. Did you support, in that commit tee which you were a mem ber of, a compu lsory checkoff for beef cattle in Manitoba? -(Interject ion)- Yes, sir, "no" would be sufficient. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind this witness and all others that no witness is obliged to answer any question. MR. USICK: I want to try to be as correct as possible and I was just looking at the rec ommendations that we ... MR.

DOWNEV: I could perhaps carry on to the next question ... MR. USICK: Well, could you enlarge your question and indicate exactly what part, because there were quite a number of rec ommendations, as you remember. MR. DOWNEY: This is only one part that I am asking for. Did you support . . MR. USICK: Could you refer to that particular recommendation, or read it out MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is up to the members of the committee to ask the questions in this particular comm ittee, is it not? MR. USKIW: Mr . Chairman, on a point of order. The witness before us is prepared to answer the question.

He is asking the Minister whether he would elabo rate, for his benefit, in order that he may answer the question, the

section which he is making reference to, with respect to the recommendations that were signed by Mr. Usick in the Inquiry Commission Report. All the witness is asking for is some assistance so that he can locate the

section to determine whether or not, in fact, there was such a provision as mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEY: Mr . Chairman, I'll clarify my question. Did the witness, in a report to government of which he was a memb er of a commit tee that held hearings across the Province of Manitoba, was he a part of a committee, that a part of the recommendation to the government was to have a compuls ory beef checkoff to support an organization in the Province of Manitoba? Was he a mem ber and was that part of the recom mendation which he was a member to? MR.

USICK: Well, it wasn't a checkoff as you infer. lt was a levy on cattle to finance the adminis tration of a marketing board. That is, as a I pointed out to an earlier witness, a marketing board and the services that it does, is different than a farm organization. MR. DOWNEY: 1 have another question. Were you a member of the Manitoba Marketing Board, Mr. Usick? MR. USICK: Yes, I was. MR. DOWNEV: At what period of time were you a mem ber of that board? MR. USICK: Approxima tely five years. MR. DOWNEV: For five years. MR. USICK: Up until about January of 19 77, I believe. MR. DOWNEY: So you would start about 19 72.

MR. USICK: Something like that. MR. DOWNEV: Were you a mem ber of that board when the government of the day made it compu lsory for the hog producers of Manitoba to market through the Manitoba Hog Marketing Board, that deducted a fee from every hog in the province, whether they wanted to be a part of that or 190

not? Standing Committee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 19 78 MR. USICK: Of course, the Manitoba Marketing Board themselves, only look over or supervise the admin istration of the actual marketing boards. The Manitoba Marketing Board as such is not involved in the day-to-day operations of a board. They are a supervisory board, as you would appreciate. MR. DOWNEY: If I could follow up to that particular question, were you a part of the Manitoba Marketing Board when that particular regulation was put into effect by the govern ment of the day? MR. USICK: Well, as I recal l, I can remember taking

part in the election of producers, because I chaired two or three of the meetings when it was changed from a government board to a producer board, and I remember supervising some of the dis trict elections at the ti me. I can't really recall if I was on the board or not. MR. DOWNEV: Did the Manitoba Marketing Board recommend to the Minister of the day that all hogs produced in Manitoba should be marketed through the Manitoba Hog Producers Marketing Board? MR. USICK: Well, the Manitoba Marketing Board doesn't operate in that way. The Marketing Board does not initia te proposals on behalf of produc ers.

The proposals are initia ted within the marketing boards themselves and they are then subm itted to the Manitoba Marketing Board for perusal and to see if they come within the Act and are then forwarded on to the Minister. But the recommendations do not come from the Manitoba Marketing Board as such, they come individually from the producer boards and unless the producer board supp orted the ... the Marketing Board really doesn't even look at them. MR.

DONNEV: Did the Manitoba Hog Producers Marketing Board recom mend to the Manitoba Hog Marketing Board that all hogs produced in Manitoba should be mar keted through the one marketing agency? MR. USICK: I really can't recall if I was on the board at that time or not, I really can't. MR. DOWNEY: I have another question. You say you were a member of the Manitoba Marketing Board for some five years, up to 19 77. Were you involved in a government research project, for which funds were provided by the government, in the livestock business? MR.

USICK: Are you talking about the Inquiry Commission into Livestock Marketing? MR. DOWNEY: I am just asking you if you were involved in a research pr oject for which funds or cattle were provided by the provincial govern ment? MR. USICK: If you are referring to the Inquiry Commission, I was a member of the Inquiry Commission that studied livestock marketing in Manitoba, as I said, from 19 74 to 19 76. MR. DOWNEV: I am asking you a question, did you have cattle or funds from the government of the province for a research pr oject project, funds which were provided out of the Manitoba Horned Cattle Fund? MR.

USICK: Well, if you would refer specifically to the ... I have been involved in various agricultural associations and various things with ag reps, for example, who have conduc ted various items over a long period of time, so I'm not just sure what you are referring to. I know in one case I was involved with feeder steers and we were checking what kind of yield and grade we were going to get off grass-fed cattle, if you are referring to something lik e that. MR. DOWNEV: Who provided the funds or the cattle for that project? MR. USICK: The cattle were my own. I received no funds from the govern ment.

Does that answer your question. I had 25 of my own steers on that program and the only thing that was done was that they took cattle from various producers all across the province that were on grass and grass finishing. I had them on natural pasture up near the Riding Mountain National Park, as part of my herd, and 1 took 25 steers of my own herd and I said, all right, we are going to market them. We 191

Standing Commit tee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 19 78 are going to get into this program. What was involved there was that come about the middl e of October, they said, all right, we are going to market a group of these gr ass-fed cattle and my 25 steers were loaded by the Erickson Transfer, were brought into the abattoirs, were slaughtered, were hung up. We were called in and we looked at the various carcasses hanging on the rail.

The chief of the grading standards came in and dis cussed the various grading of the various carcasses with the producers that were involved and we were paid on the basis of the gra ding that was done on those carcasses. MR. DOWNEY: Okay, thank you. You referred to 7(2) of the regulations, or the way that a refund could be obtained from a producer who did not want to participa te in Bill 25. Although it does not spell it out specifically in this particular part of the Act, but I think that there have been a lot of assumptions.

All the Act reads, to this particular point, that there can be no funds received until after a produ cer-elected board, and after that produc er-elected board establish the means of opting out or provi ding for individuals not participating with their funds, that there is no way that you could assume - or it would be a complete assumption, would it not - that the funds would be held for a year or six months. Would you not agree that it would be up to the produc er-elected board to provide for a means of refund of funds, the way this Act reads. MR. USICK: No, it is just the very opposite of that.

The way that it reads under 7(2)(b), it said that there would be no regulation ... MR. DOWNEY: I think, in fairness, you should read all of 7(2). MR. USICK: All right. "No regulation imposing fees under clause (1) (

b) shall be made (

a) until the election of the members of the association is held within the time specified under subsection 11 (1) " MR. DOWNEY: Which says, sir? MR. USICK: Subsection 11 (1) says: "Within three months after coming into force of this Act, the association shall pass an admini stration by-law . . . " and so on. And it says, "unless it provides and sets out the procedure for the refund of fees of those produc ers who apply." MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I would just like, for clarifica tion, do you read in there that a producer has to wait one year to get his funds back? MR.

USICK: No, I was reading that from the resolution which passed at The Manitoba Beef Gr owers annual meet ing that this was one of the proposals that they had . . . MR. DOWNEY: Well, may I for clarification? You are now here to present your views on Bill 25, not a resolution from a Beef Gr owerss meeting, and that we are here to deal with this specific bill. MR. USICK: Well, I would suggest to you, Mr.

Mi nister, that I have heard beef growers talk, and Beef Gr ower di rectors, and they assume that all of the di rectors of The Manitoba Beef Gr owers will automatically be appointed as di rectors of this proposed new organization. MR. DOWNEY: Could you back that up if they . MR. USICK: . .. This is what they are thinking. MR. DOWNEY: That is the assumption, Sir . MR. USICK: And the adm inistration by-law, they already dr afted some months ago. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Usick, is that not an assumption? Would you agree that that is an assumption? MR. USICK: Well, it may be an assumption on their part . . . MR.

DOWNEY: Thank you. 192

Standing Committee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 19 78 ------------------------------ MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Uskiw on a point of order. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering whether our witness is prepared to leave us a copy of that adminis tration by-law proposal MR. USICK: Yes, I can leave that. MR. USKIW: Well, when a person is referring to a document, every memb er of the committee is entitled to ask if a copy of that document can be retained by the comm ittee. MR. CHAIRMAN: When these remarks are completed, Mr. Usick, could you leave that document with the ... MR.

USICK: Could I have one provision, that you make a copy of it and send it to me in the mail, so I will have a copy? This is the only copy that I have. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm certain that can be arranged. MR. USICK: Yes, okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Gou rlay, please. MR. DOUG GOU RLAV: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The questions that I was going to put to Mr . Usick have already been put, so I'll pass this time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, the Member for Gladstone in his remarks just a few moments ago dealt with the proposition in the Province of Saskatchewan, which we are not debating, but he was debating, and so I want to deal with that, Mr. Chairman. The Meer for Gladstone referred to the fact that in the Province of Saskatchewan they have a checkoff, in which case the government has assumed control of the funds of the checkoff. it's interesting to note, Mr.

Chairman, and I'd be interested to hear comments from the Meer for Gladstone about these provisions. lt says that a trust account established under the provisions of this Act, and that every dealer shall not later than the 10th day of every month, make or cause to be made a return to the Minister in such form as the Minister may prescribe. That's probably what the Meer for Gladstone has been alluding to, and I would appreciate if he would correct me if I'm wrong. MR. FERGUSON: Mr.

Chairman, the statement I'm alluding to was a statement in The Free Press, to do with Bill 73, introduced in the Saskatchewan Legislature passed dur ing their last sessi on, which said that, "Mr. Kaed ing, the Minister of Agriculture, had taken over adminis tration of the fund of The Cattle Producers Associa tion," and the fund I believe at that time was in the neighbourhood of $1 00,000.00. This is where I'm getting my information from. MR. USKIW: Well, Mr.

Chairman, that report probably alludes to the fact that moneys have to be paid, colle cted and made payable to the Minister, as he may prescribe by regulation. The bill that I'm reading from is dated 19 70, Mr. Chairman, the Province of Saskatchewan, wherein at that time the NDP was not the government of Saskatchewan. MR. FERGUSON: So what? lt has nothing to do with this. MR.

USKIW: Well, it has a lot to do with your statement, because you alleged, Sir, that the new Mi nister in Saskatchewan had taken upon himself the responsibility of assuming control of that fund when there was always a provision in the Saskatchewan legislation for government control of that legislation and the fund, and how it was to be utilized. MR. FERGUSON: Then, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the former Minister of Agriculture, up to the introduction of Bill 73, who had the admin istration of the fund? Was it the cattlemen, or was it the government of Saskatchewan? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please.

This does not appear to be a point of order, it appears to be a 193

Standing Comm ittee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 19 78 debate which can be more properly conduc ted in the House. MR. FERGUSON: Mr. Uskiw raised a point of order. MR. USKIW: You should read your legislation before you say ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Are there any more questions for this witness? There being none, thank you very much, Mr . Usick. MR. USICK: This administration by-law, do you want me to leave that in your hands then, and you will see that I get a copy of it? MR. CHAIRMAN: Deposit it with the Clerk, Mr. Usick , and he will deal with making copies and seeing that you get them returned . MR.

USKIW: One last question, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: I had understood that the questions had come to an end. MR. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, if you wish to rule me out of order, that is fine. I have one more question. A MEMBER: Ask "by leave". MR. USKIW: No, Mr. Chairman, I don't need leave. Mr. Chairman, I do not need leave. The witness is still there. We have not called another witness. MR. CHAIRMAN: By all means, Mr. Uskiw, please proceed. MR.

USKIW: Yes, I would like to know, Sir, what your organization intends to do, or what its course of action will be, if you are in a position to indicate, should the government not accept the advice of the majority of briefs that were pr esented in the course of these hearings asking that this bill not be proceeded with, or that it have very substantive amendments introduced before it's proceeded with?

In either event, what would be the position of your organization with respect to how they will attempt to present their views to the government after this new association is formed and offi cially recognized by the government as the spokesman for the cattle industry in Manitoba? MR. USICK: Well, this is some thing that we will have to look into as an organization. I might say that we have been disappointed with the procedures as have gone on up to this point with Bill 25. We had a public meeting at Grand view earlier this spring, where the Minister of Agriculture, Mr.

Downey, was invited to attend, and we met privately with him, a group of us from the Independent Cattle Producers. We had been given some assurances at this meeting which have come to nought, and so we have been rather disappointed in this aspect of it. Now we've come to the point where the bill is in the Legislature, there is no provision for a refer endum, and I must say that it was inconceivable in our thinking, that we would get to that stage without a refer endum. Now your question is referring to what would be our position if this bill goes through the House in its present form.

Now, it's inconceivable in my way of thinking that the bill has got to this stage. lt is even more inconceivable to think that the bill would proceed through the House in the form that it is, and certainly I am not in a position to say as yet what the organizational point of view is, but I can say that we have dis cussed it to the point where certainly we will be going out on a membership drive to increase the meership within our organiza tion.

I think there will be a fruitful field to work in if this bill goes through in its present form, and if the government chooses or does not choose to hear from us as an organization, that is something that they will have to decide and live with on their own. We do live in a democr acy. MR. USKIW: Yes, I wonder, Sir, would you clarify what assurances were given to you by the Mi nister of Agriculture at that meeting? You mentioned some thing about certain assurances were provided ... $ , MR. USICK: We took the Minister to task on the fact that we were not going to have a ref erendum before this bill was introduced.

He was attempting to take us to task in return for suggesting that, how do we know there will not be a refer endum? Am I not correct, Mr. Downey? Well, there were qui te a number of people there, I think some of them from Grandview - if 19 4

Standing Commit tee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 1978 this hearing goes on tom orrow, they will want to come here tomorrow and are back up that cla im. There a number of them, that if the hearings are not finished tonight, will be coming tomorrow, because the way the hearings went last night.

We did not think that it would be possible for them to come a long dis tance and be heard because of the fact that you only went through about five briefs last night, and we don't know when you will adjourn, so some of them are planning to come tomorrow, and if there is a number of them come, then you can attempt to correct them. I know that that was their thinking, and you gave no indication to suggest that there would not be a refer en8um. I think that was misleading, to say the least. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, on that answer, did I make them believe that there would be a refer endum? MR.

USICK: Yes, you certainly did. MR. DOWNEY: On this particular issue? MR. USICK: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. That is not a point of order. Mr. Einarson. MR. EINARSON: I don't want to ... the witness has been here for quite some time, and I just want to ask two questions, very briefly. I hope that I can get a di rect answer. Regardless of the name of an association established, if it were by beef producers in this province, do you believe in a compuls ory checko ff of all cattle marketed? MR. USICK: Not without a vote of producers. MR.

EINARSON: Then I ask you very very forcefu lly, did you sign or were you signa tory to the Commission of Inquiry Report, and the Advisory Comm ittee which recommended financing a beef organization by which a com puls ory checkoff of all cattle marketed? MR. USICK: I signed the report, but the report did not rec ommend as you suggest or infer in your question, a compu lsory organization. There was no organizational structur e of that kind at all suggested; we were talking about a levy financing marketing board operation, not a farm organiza tion. MR. EINARSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. USKIW: Mr .

Chairman, we have here a problem in this committee arising from some comments and statements that were made by the Minister to our witness. The Minister, in making his comments insinuated some im propriety on the part of this witness with respect to some research project which I didn't quite get what it was, and I think that is very unfair, without the Mi nister clarifying ... -(I nterjection)- Well, I raise the question of privilege, Mr.

Chairman, that a witness may have been slandered here, which is not the purpose of this meeting, and the Minister, I believe, is obl igated to either clarify what he was getting at or at least remove any doubt from the minds of anyone present in this room, that there was any inpropr iety. lt is totally and absolutely unfair for the Minister to have made those comments, unless he had something to say of substance, but to leave that kind of innuendo hanging in the public air, is not acceptable, Mr. Chairman. MR.

USICK: I would certainly lik e to know what he was referring to myself, because I attempted to answer his question and he dropped the matter. I'm not sure what you were referring to? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. lt is my understanding of the rules of procedure that a witness is not allo wed to add ress a point of privilege or other point of procedure. MR. USKIW: But, Mr . Chairman, I think it's common cou rtesy that the Minister should be allo wed to clarify his statem ent.

I don't think it's proper to allow this witness to go back home without knowing what the Minister was alluding to and leaving some question as to his integrity. -(l nterjecti on) Well, it's a matter of common decency. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Minister wish to respond? 195

Standing Committee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 19 78 MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I'm tal king about a little bit of common sense and decency. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I will respo nd. I think the witness has had the same opportunity to refrain from answering any question that has is being asked of him at this hearing as any other meer of the commit tee or witness to it. For clarification, I was not trying to indicateanything other than the fact that I was asking the witness whether he had been involved in a research pr oject with the govern ment, that's all.

And it was clarified that he was, in fact, involved in a research project of grading of cattle, and I'm satisified with that answer. I've no further questions on it. MR. USKIW: For the pur pose of clarification, can the Minister tell the comm ittee whether in his mind there was any im proprie ty in that particular arrangement that he alluded to, now that he has raised the question? MR. DOWNEY: No, it was just as I have sai d, it was for clarifica tion, and the member has the right to answer or not to answer the witness, or as many witnesses in the past have decided not to answer.

I know there has been no inference on the meer of the commit tee at all. MR. USICK: Well, it's up to the member whether he's satisfied or not. MR. CHAIRMAN: This com pletes the examination of this witness. Thank you very much, Mr . Usick. MR. CHAIRMAN: Claude St. Jacques? Order please. Is Mr . St. Jacques in the audience? James Bezan. Order please, order please. James Bezan. Ken Riddell, Ken Riddell? Richard Klassen. Richard Klassen? Norman Edie, Norman Edie? Dorothy Crozier. Dorothy Crozier?

If the commi ttee is still sitting tomo rrow morning, these names that are not here go to the bottom of the list and will be considered at that time. Richard Rattai. Richard Rattai? Lyle Ross. We can go to the next speaker and he will be consider ed after the next speaker. Clarke Robson. Clarke Robson? A. D. Jones. A.D. Jones? Mr. Ross, please. MR. LYLE ROSS: Mr. Chairman, mem bers of the committee. I'm Lyle Ross from Basswood, Manitoba. I farm there with my father who is in the process, I suppose you would say, of reti ring. About a week ago he just had a house moved into Minnedosa.

I also work together with my brother. The land base at home is 320 acres, a half section, of which at the present time I am renting and have been renting the grain acres. My dad has been a beef producer all his life, I suppose, because he never did anything else other than farm. At the present time he has 12 cows with calves at foot. My brother has 30 cows and his normal practice has been to buy about 20 lig ht-weight calves in late summer, early autumn, and feed them through winter. Often they are sold as two-way cattle, sometimes fed out but often they go at a stage where they would still go back to a feedlot.

I'm presenting this presentation on my own behalf. I do not have a written brief to hand out to the members of the commit tee. While my presentation is given on my own behalf much of what 1 have to say and my approach to the dis cussion on Bill 25 is influenced by the fact that I am a member of the National Farmers Union, Local 516 , and I am a national board member for Region 5 which is Manitoba, of the National Farmers Union. I'm sort of debating, sort of thinking about how you open up someth ing like this.

I guess I was, having sat through the hearings last night, I was thinking, well, what really is my pu rpose here? First I thought of what's my purpose back home when I'm there and the purpose of my work on the farm is to create wealth. In that situation my labour is the father of the wealth and the land is the mother. The purpo se of my speaking to this committee is to protect my rights over the wealth that I have created and to influence the conditions upon which that wealth will be shared with the rest of society.

To say that that wealth now is shared with the rest of society is a lie. lt is more lik e a case of rape. I have learned that as an individual farmer I have no control over the economic, the political and the social pressures that are put upon me as a farmer. I have learned that I must unite my voice with others of my class so that together we can fight to protect our legitima te rights as farmers and as food producers. Together we can promote the policies that we believe are required 196

Standing Committee On Agriculture Friday, July 14, 19 78 to ensure that we can live with one another and not off of one another. I'm not really very disci plined, I guess, at sitting down and writing a comprehensive brief in time that it meets a certain deadline and can be print ed up and distributed so from this point on, I'll be touching on areas that are of concern to me in dealing with Bill 25 and in the beef issue, the whole beef industry. While it may wander, I hope that the gist of it comes through.

I also have some things that I'll be referring to that I would be prepared to, and would want to table with the commit tee, as material that the commit tee can use in its deli berations after these hearings to further this process. I guess the first thing that I want to touch on is the question of unity and the idea and notion that Bill 25 is one that will unite cattle producers. I can say truthfully that anybody that belie ves that they are going to unite all cattle producers is living in a dream world.

Working from that premise, then given the fact that the beef industry historically has been made up of factions vying with each other for superiority, I suppose you might say, and also influence, and given the fact that I said as a farmer I believe in a philosophy that says I want to live with my neighbour, I dont want to live off of him, I go about the process of uniting farmers by first working with the people that I know that have something in common and common beliefs.

My involvement in the NF U and my reading of the history of the farm struggles in Western Canada, leading up to the formation of what now is the National Farmers Union in 19 69 from an amalgamation of provincial farm unions, I know that you cannot create unity without people volunteering their support, consciously accepting the responsibilities and the need to be united. So in Bill 25, of course, I reject it as a unifying force because, of course, it's not based on the principle of someone volunteering their support

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-2-ag3
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 2nd hansardpdf ag3.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2e320acbd6b617b7323a0d1859139a11addcb90f

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