Manitoba Hansard — 5 April 1982 (Sitting 27B, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-27b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 5 April, 1982 Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION MR. CHAIRMAN, Harry M. Haraplak (The Pas): l.(b)

(1) Salaries. The Member for Pembina. MR. DONALD ORCHARD (Pemblna): The Minister mentioned a new position that was coming up in administration and over Private Members' Hour, just a couple more thoughts occurred to me -(Interjec tion)- what's your problem? How do you say it in Russian? Mr. Chairman, if the department finds this individ ual who's suitable for the job of implementing affirma tive action in the department, would you foresee the department, say, subsidizing contractors to train Natives to undertake certain job skills in the construc tion industry like operators, etc.? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister.

HON. SAMUEL USKIW (La c Du Bonne t): Mr. Chair man, as I envisage this program through the next twelve-month period and beyond, is that the person in charge of the program will try to utilize all of the programs that are now available, federal-provincial, through a multitude of departments and will plug into our program in that way, which would hopefully not be a charge on this department. That doesn't mean that we wouldn't be prepared to consider a charge on the department for part of that package, depending on what is being proposed down the road.

It's merely a concept at this stage and this individual is to develop the model, and it may be possible that in that model will be some departmental component, a cost com ponent. Really it's purely speculative at this point in time, but I would not say no. MR. ORCHARD: The Minister also indicated this afternoon that as well as his working with the contrac tors in the various contracts, whether the bridge divi sion or actual road construction, this person will also work within the department to bring departmental staff on-staff.

Would this person be in rather close liaison with the personnel department then, would you envision? MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, as I would picture it and again we're speculating quite a bit about the role of this individual, but I would imagine that this individual would interface with the personnel people in the department; would interface with every district engi neer; would interface with the various communities from which we would be drawing potential employees; would interface with the industry people who will be submitting tenders on various projects; would inter face inter-departmentally.

So, yes, very much so, I would say that this person will have to respond to a 1131 whole host of areas, part of which are not contained in the department. And also with the Civil Service Com mission there will have to be some liaison between this person, our personnel people, and the Civil Ser vice Commission. MR. ORCHARD: Then would you envision this per son possibly sitting on the Departmental Selection Committee that chooses personnel from a wide range of applicants who have applied for a given job or position? MR. USKIW: Possible, yes. I'm not certain, but possi ble, maybe desirable if that takes place.

MR.

ORCHARD: That would make the job descrip tion, I think, quite important through this person and the method by which this person is selected, and my concern at the present time might be that there would exist a possibility - and I'll paint a scenario and the Minister can correct me where it's going askance - that, let's say, this Minister would choose an individ ual to fill this job description for him, and then this person would have sufficient influence on the hiring process that just possibly, and I speculate here, there might be some political interference from the Minis ter's office to assure that certain individuals would be hired above other individuals in a job competition if this person had the ability to influence the panel reviewing applicants.

That would be a concern cer tainly, I think, that the Minister could well appreciate. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I would envisage that what we would do is have a number of jobs that become available within the department classified as, whatever term you wanted to use, but for lack of a better term, an affirmative action position, so that everyone in the system has identified it as that kind of a position.

Then you select a person that qualifies as a candidate for that position, because logicially what you're trying to do here is to provide an opportunity that normally wouldn't exist in the normal process, to the disadvantaged group. So, you would have to have those positions identified in advance as positions for affirmative action jobs, and that would be a dialogue that would take place between this individual and the various components in the department.

That would identify X number of jobs when they became vacant, or when there is a potential for attrition, that there would be lead time to say, well all right, this job looks like it could be a position that could be filled by such a candidate. It's not something that would just happen overnight; it would have to be planned for. MR. ORCHARD: I think there isn't any great degree of concern that this shouldn't be done.

As a matter of fact, if the Minister would have searched back into the department, I think generally people have been hired with the best combination of talents as the job des cription required, and in no small way I think there has been a significant amount of affirmative action within the department, particularly at the district office level already. And I suppose one of the concerns that

Monday, 50 April, 1982 alw ays surfaces when there is an active embarka tion on affi rmative ac tion is that, you know, you've got a desi gn, a motive in place to ach ieve a given end, and you're going to do it come hell or high water, and sometimes that has repercussions that aren't fore seen. If this is simply a person to identify opportuni ties, and to attempt to fi ll those oppor tunities in a method in concu rrence with affi rmative action, then I think there would be very li ttle concern.

But as I reit erate with the Minister, if this should perchance sur face - and I'm not making any accusa tions, but if the potential were there - into a method by which the normal hiring practic es would be interfered with by the Minis ter's offi ce, I think it wou ld be to the detri ment of the department and the dis trict offices in the longrun. And I would think the Min ister would see the concern that it would not happen, I'm quite sure he wouldn't al low that to happen. MR. USKIW: Wel l, Mr. Chairman, I suppose one has to wait for the proof in the pudding, so to speak.

You know, that's al ways an open area of specu la tion. I don't know what I can do to satis fy the Member for Pem bina in advance other than to suggest to him that I happen to belie ve, that I'm fa mi liar with what he is talk ing about in the sense that there's al ways that kind of a question that surrounds anything that is sort of not standard in the hiring process, and I don't know if you can ever escape from that.

Seco ndly, there probably might be a tendency on the part of some people to specula te on reasons why certain indi viduals are brought in under that kind of a program, because of the nature of the program. You know you might have 50 appl ican ts, and there might be two positions, and there's supposedly room for all kinds of speculation as to how it is that those two were chosen, especially if they're, to begin with, catego rized as the dis advantaged work force that we're look ing for.

I don't know if you can ever erase the spectre of a sort of public concern, or some opinion on the part of political people or otherwise, that might think that there's something wrong in the process. I don't think you can completely insula te yourself from that eventual ity. Certainly it should n't be the mode of operation. As I see it, the fi rst step is to introduce a person that is availabl e for that particular job opporunity. That's the fi rst step. The seco nd step is to try to gradua te them out of that spot and, you know, they themselv es will determine whether they have that abi li ty.

The personnel department will have to determine whether they have that abil ity and hopefu lly promote tham up the ladder, and to the extent that you do that you've opened up that slot for another such person. But at the second step they should be competing for their next job. They should n't be sheltered for the second position. That's how I sort of envis age this. But again I don't want to draw too much of a picture because I myself don't know how this is going to operate. The purpose of this one staff man year is to deve lop a model which we will look at and either ag ree with or amend.

We can waste an awful lot of time on spec ula tion as to how this is going to operate. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pem bi na. MR. ORCHARD: In Item 2. Other Expen ditu res, is that specific ally where the Ja nssen contract is? MR. USKIW: I would bel ieve that's correct, Mr. Chairman, it wouldn't flow directly under Sala ry. Consulting Contracts would be under Other Expendi tures, I think. Wher e do they show up? I'm sorry it comes under (

d) Transportation Division. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (b)

(1) Sa larie s-pass; 1. (b)

(2) Other Expen ditures-pass; 1. (c)

(1) Computer Ser vices: Sa larie s-pass. The Memb er for Pembina. MR. ORCHARD: There is a sizable increase in the Salaries. Are you taking on additional staff in the Computer Service s? MR. USKIW: Yes, there are three additional staff, Mr. Chairma n, strictly workload increase, roadway desi gn. MR. ORCHARD: Is the computer store or warehouse inventory program now complete? MR. USK IW: I'm sorry, perhaps I should correct my statement, Mr. Chairman, there are three additional.

One is for workl oad rela tive to roadway design by computer; one is to meet systems needs of the trans portation economic s in Research Division and then an Admin istrative Sec retary to provide clerical sup port to program analy sts, three positions. MR. ORCHARD: The roadway desi gn system, is it in any of the di strict offices at present with a remote terminal ? MR. USKIW: Of that, I'm not certain. Four. MR. ORCHARD : So there is three new SMY's; the Other Exp enditures, okay, that Item can pass. 1132 MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (c)(1 ) Comput er Servi ces: Sal aries- pass; 1. (c)

(2) Other Exp enditures-pass; 1. (

d) Transportation Division:

(1) Salaries. The Member for Pembina. MR. ORCHARD: Onc e again there must be some new SMY's in there, Mr. Minister. MR. USKIW: Yes, there are two additional staff man years. MR. ORCHARD: Wha t are they going to be involv ed with, Mr. Chai rman? MR. USKIW: On the Transportation Divis ion. I think that's the Handic ap Program, but I'm not certain; one handic ap and one typist in the Handic ap Program. MR. ORCHARD: The Other Exp enditures include the contract. What's the total val ue for the contract to Mr. Jans sen in Other Expenditu res? MR. USKIW: I think that's a six-month contract at around $5 ,000 and some odd per month so it would be somewhere in the order of $30,000 some odd in there.

Monday, 5 Apri l, 1982 MR. ORCHARD: And the allo wance for expe nses on that contract? MR. USKIW: Sorry. MR. ORCHARD: And the allo wances for expenses on that contract? MR. USKIW: Yes, expenses are additional to that. MR. ORCHARD: So, that we'd have a total of $35,000 to $40,000 .00? MR. USKIW: That's assuming, Mr. Chair man, that the contract is not extended beyond the fi rst six months and most of that comes out of la st year's acc ounts because we've just comple ted a fiscal year-end. The bulk of that fi rst six-month period was within that year. MR.

ORCHARD: Is there bud get prov1s1ons for extending that or would that have to be done by Spe cial Warrant? MR. USKIW: It's my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that usually you try to dev elop some fle xibil ity within the department for those kinds of eventualitie s although it's al ways possible to go for a Special War rant if one can't find the funds from within. MR. ORCHARD: So, I take it that there are certai n of the increase in expenditures for the eventual ity of having to extend Mr. Janssen's contract. MR. USKIW: That's a possibil ity, Mr. Chairman. That decision has not been made. MR.

ORCHARD: Has the transportation division de veloped any informati on on the Easte rn Seaway capacity as it applie s to particula rly the prairie grain shipments? MR. USKIW: The transportation division has had a report issued to various interested parties I'm told some months ago on that very question, but I have not seen a copy of it. MR. ORCHARD: I don't recall if the some months were some months ago far enough back. I wonder if I could get a copy of that as wel l. MR. USKIW: Yes, there's no problem on that, Mr. Chairman. MR.

ORCHARD: Has there been any reaction to some of the suggestions that were made on the Port of Ch urchill that came out of the meeting in June of la st year on methods of extending the season at Churchill, methods to put more volume of grains through the Port of Churchill; has there been any official reaction from the Federal Gov ernment on some of the propos als that came out of that meeting in Da uphin? MR. USKIW: I'm advised that there's been no sub stantive response on the extension of the season or the insurance aspect of it amongst other things, there's really not been much information coming back. MR.

ORCHARD: I take it that will be one of the areas that the department and the Minister will spend some time on, is to try to get the relative position of Chur chill as a grai n export port in a li ttle better light than it has been in the la st couple of years. Wou ld that con tinue to take a fai rly high profile in the transportation division repertoire of jobs, as numerous as they are? MR. USKIW: Mr. Chair man, it depends on whose advice one wants to take.

If I was to take the advice of some honourable members in Ottawa we might clo se it down, but we have al ways exp ressed a keen desire to upgrade the system in Chur chill and really that dates back to the previous term of our government wherein, together with the Gov ernment of Canada, many tens of milli ons of dol lars were spent in the Town of Churchill itself on the understanding that there was going to be growth there rather than a reduction in population, and unfortunately the reverse has happened, although the Gov ernment of Canada put in 60 cents out of every doll ar, as I recall it, into those new fac il ities.

Simu ltaneously, there were deci sions made at that level to reduc e the level of activity on the part of the Government of Canada, so that's been an uphill battle for many, many years and cer tainly it hasn't changed. I don't recall, or haven't noticed, any progress bei ng made in the la st four years on that score. Whether we can manage to turn that around I can't really say, but we have al ways given preference to a greater role on the part of the Government of Canada at the Port of Churchill. MR. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Wel l, I suppose the Minis ter's remarks could open up a whole series of interesting di alogue. I think the Fed eral Government very astutely put in 60 cents on the Capital dollar and left the province with 100 percent of the operating costs which if, in this renewed era under the Pawle y ad ministration of co-operative effo rt with the Federal Gov ernment, we get stuck with another town comple x at Churchill to operate to infinity, I would think co-operative federalism would be set back somewha t.

But unfortunately, or maybe unfor tunately is the wrong word , but all of the efforts in the early part of the'7 0's, I think, not all that much of it was focused on the port itself to attempt to get a greater capacity in the port. There was some dredging done and that's probably about all . 1133 There were some pretty logical suggestions made and we had been discussing them with the Federal Government; such things as use in the start and the end of the season of the MV Arctic to attempt to extend the seaso n at Churchill. Of course, I think the one experience in the fa ll showed that it had defi nite potential.

Tha t's the kind of thing that I suppose we, along with the Federal Government, were trying to ac hieve for Churc hill. There was the frazil ice barrier to attempt to get an extended season in the fal l. It was probably one of the lower cost things to do. And then, of course, there's the constant upgrading on the Herkmer lin e in that - what do they call them, heat tubes, I guess - the experi ment on the heat tubes on the permafrost that I had opportunity to see la st

Monday, 5 April, 1982 summer; certainly in the

section I had a look at last summer - and possibly the Chair man would know more abo ut that than any of us - seemed to have a lot of potential. Now, of course, when you get into the economic s of whether it would pay to do that on substantial stretches, I don't know. The bigge st key to getting greater capacity through the Port of Churchill proba bly still is the final upgrad ing of that Herkmer sub to the heavier steel so that the loaded hopper cars can make use of the Port of Churchill.

I don't think there's any question that, in terms of terminal houses, that the terminal at Churchill is one of the most efficient in the Ca nadian export system. It has cle aning capacity far in excess of any other ter minal that I'm aware of on either the east coast or the St. Lawrence deliv ery system, and they've got a la b our contingent up there that is quite refreshing to talk to. When I was up there in June of la st year after the Da uphin meeting, they were quite di sappoi nted that there was n't going to be a ship in until late July, early August.

They were anxious to work which I think is quite a refreshing attitude amongst some of the current problems that beset some of our ports, so that I think there are a number of thing s that the Federal Government can do and, giving them their due credit, were moving on.

If , as some people say, the freight rate.s are going to go up on the cost of moving grai n that what we're going through now is an exercise in wi ndow dressing, that the Federal Government has al ready made up their mind and transportation costs are distant related , it certai nly puts Churchill in a very, very advantageous position because I belie ve it is the cl osest tidewater terminal in Canada for prairie grain export.

I really think that some of the things that we had developed and, of course, the transportation di vi sion did most of the research on them for us in prepa ration of the June meeting, I think some of the sugges tions that were made there have very, very good longrun potential for Chu rchill as a grai n port. I can just assure the Minis ter that he will get support from our side of the House in undertaking whatever moral suasion he has to with the Federal Government to have them undertake some of the chan ges that are needed to improve the capacity up there.

In terms of capacity to the west coast, there has been a number of di scussions and projections made. Has the transportation division got an update, a more recent report, on what the capacity constraints may well be in the future on grai ns movi ng to the ports of Prince Ru pert and Vancouver ? MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I belie ve a lot of that information is contai ned with the Crow package. The ex pectations of the bulk commo di ty movement through the mountains still seem to be identical to what they were a year or two ago.

Jus t at the Westac Co nference last week they decided that they did n't want to revise the figur es. I don't bel ieve there were revisions; they're still the same, so that we're still look ing at the same kind of situation vis -a-v is the rail road capacity agai nst the tonnage that is ex pected to be moved , or needed to be moved , in the next decade.

It centres very much, though, around the coal fields and the needed expansion in rai lway fa cil ities relates more to the coal ind ustry than it does to o.ther com modities, although grain is projected to expand a 1134 consider able amount as wel l, but that's based on Whe at Board projections over the next decade. But, by and large, the coal movements are the big increase; it's the big increase commod ity as far as transporta tion requirements are concerned. MR. ORCHARD: Then I think the major new push on coal is, I belie ve, to Prince Ru pert with the majority of the grain going down to Vancouver.

The transportation division was involv ed la te la st year in intervening with an appl ica tion, and I may not have the details exact ly right, but it was a air-l icensing of - I forget which airline - but it was to Rankin In let and it was going to bypass Churchill, and ther e was some consider able concern that having that route bypass Churchill would be a further dis advantage to the com munity. Could the Min ister indic ate whether anything positive came out of that intervention? MR. USKIW: Yes, we have taken that issue as far as we ca n.

It's now before the Federal Cabi net, so we're not sure what's going to happen there. It's at the ministerial level in essence. Jus t getting back to the tonnages. The projected tonnages of coal through the mountains of British Col umb ia is still hold ing at 53.3 milli on tons by 19 90 as opposed to 14 milli on tons in 1980, so that gives you an idea of just what they're looking at in terms of rail expansion. Grain is projected to move up from 10 mill ion tons to 19 milli on tons which is -(I nter jec tion)- This is Canadian Wh eat Board projection.

Sulphur from 5.4 milli on tons to 6.8; potash from 3.6 to 9 mil lion tons. So the big bulk is in the coal area. MR. ORCHARD: We ll, I take it the intervention that was initiated on that, and I forget who the air carrier was, but the one into Ran kin Inl et that was going to bypass Churchill, the intervention that was filed, I bel ieve, in October if I recall correctly or thereabouts, was, I take it, not successful and that's why you're at the Cabine t level now? MR.USKIW : Yes, that's right. The original interven tion was not succ essfu l. That was file d in October, or whenever.

We file d an appeal on that decision and that is now before the Ca binet. · MR. ORCHARD: I know you can't specula te on these thi ngs. Are you going to have any success at the Cabi net level do you belie ve? MR. USKIW : I have no idea, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn 't want to specula te. MR. ORCHARD: After havi ng a li ttle more time to really analy ze the impact, is the impact expected to be as serious on the carriers operati ng out of Churchill as was originally antici pated? MR.

USKIW: The issue there has more to do than just with air transportation, it has to do with the viabil ity of Churchill as wel l, but it is going to have very severe negative affects two other carriers, and certain ly, other decisions may flo w from that decision which will reduce again the level of ac tivit y in the Town of Churchill; that is, public activity. I know, there's a new

Monday, 5 April, 19 82 townsite centre, there's a new hospital. To the extent that the airli nes are going to be bypas sing Churchill, there may be a revision in the operations of, not only the town, but even the hospital in Churchill. So, yes, it brings into question the whole viabil ity of that com munity. It's a much bigger decision than how it affects the other airli nes although that's uppermost in terms of our concern. But it's far beyond that, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Member for La Verendrye. MR. ROBERT (Bob) BANMAN (La Verendrye): Mr.

Chairman, just for clarific ation purposes, is this the sect ion where you've all ocated certain funds for the Handi- Transit systems in Rural Mani toba? MR. USKIW: Yes, this is the section. MR. BAN MAN: Well, Mr . Chai rman, I'd briefly lik e to put a plug in for a numb er of these rural Handi Transit services that are serving the handica pped people in rural Ma nitoba.

We have one which operates in the south-eastern region and is faced with certain finan cial problems, and I guess what prompts me to ask a few of these questions is the annou ncement of the Provincial Govern ment that they'd be freezing the transit rates in Metropolitan Winnipeg. I understand that will cost the province roughly between $2 mil lion to $3 million. MR. USKIW: I'm sorry, would the mem ber repeat that? MR. BAN MAN: Wel l, I understand that in the terms of funding, it's going to cost the province between $2 mil lion to $3 millio n to freeze the transit rates in Winnip eg. MR. USKIW: Oh, I see. No.

I think he was just making a statement. MR. BANMAN : That's right. I guess my concern is, I know the one out in our area is really str uggling. The Min ister probably kno ws the backgr ound to the problem that we all face with regards to thi s. It was started up under, I believe, a Canada Works Project.

A gr oup of people were giv en a substantial amount of money to run the service for 18 months and, of cou rse, when the Federal Govern ment pulled back and then didn't allo w the funding to continue for t hat particular program, they had built up an expectation within the communi ty and created a need in the commu nit y. What has happened now is that the Municip al Govern ments as well as Provincial Govern ments have had to come up with certain funds to continue that service out in my particular area.

I know agai n, the Memb er for Dauphin and I have some thing in common on this one because that was the other one, I think, that was having difficulties in operating. The province did come through with a pro gr am last year which provided a formula for funding for these different Handi Transit services for the phys ical ly handicapped in rural Mani toba.

I guess what I'm asking the Mi nister here is if he could or if there has been any discussions or if he would undertake some discussions with his colleagues with regards to the freezing of the transit rates for these people who are using this Handi Transit service?

As I mentioned, and the Mini ster can correct my figu res, but I understand the rate freeze in Winnip eg is going to cost between $2 million to $3 mill ion, and if you do that on a per-capita basis, you just take Stein bach and the surrounding areas that use this particu lar service, you'r e talking about servicing a popula tion of roughly - the Arm of Hano ver is about 7.5 thousand people; you've got Stei nbach, 7.5; so you'r e servicing, with a few of the other muni cipalit ies in the surrou nding area, about 15 ,000 to 20,000 people.

So, if you're looking at a per-capita gr ant of, let's take the lower end of the $2 million, the lower end of the amount of money that it's costing to freeze the rates here in Winni peg, you're looking at $2 per capita, which means you're looking at some thing in excess of $30,000 just for our little area, just for the freeze, never mind the other transportation gr ants the City of Win nipeg gets. So, I would ask the Mini ster if he could undertake to talk to these people, make sure that there isn't an additional burden put on the mun ici palit ies and the users of these services.

I think that these people in the rural areas that have a handicap and cannot get around the way everybody else does shouldn't have to pay increased user fees, if the people of the City of Winnip eg who are having their rates frozen both on the Handi Transit level as well as on the reg ular transit level aren't asked to pay any mor e. I think it would only be fair if the rural people and, in this particular case, the handicapped people get treated equally with what is happening to their city cousi ns. 113 5 MR. USKIW : Well, Mr .

Chairman, the member is not quit e correct in drawing that analogy in that the freeze on transit rates in Winnip eg have to do with the transit system. It has nothing to do with the transportation of handicapped people. What he's talking about in rural areas, of course, is a special program that is in the busine ss of transporting handica pped people, whe rein the province provides for gr ant mon ies, both for capital and operating purposes. So the two are not the same. The re is no transit system in Steinbach or in Dau phin. There is in Brandon. So we're talking about two different things here.

The transpor tation subsi dies to the handic apped, of course, are gr ant pro gr ams and the local people have to pay about 25 percent of the cost of operating. The rest is supported by gr ant. MR. BANMAN: Wel l, the Mini ster can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Handi Transit system in the City of Winnip eg tied in with the reg ular transit sys tem? In other words, the special buses that go around and pick up people who are in wheelchair s and have other physical handicaps are part of the regular tran sit system in the city. MR. USKI W: Well, Mr .

Chairman, we have a special program for towns, vill ages, municip ali ties ou.tside of Winn ipeg in this department. The City of Winnip eg operates its own programs whatever they are. We are not involved with them as a department. MR. BANMAN: Mr. Chairman, I won't argue that. I

Monday, 5 April, 1982 know how this program was set up. My only concern, and I pass this on to the Min ister, is in the City of Wi nnipeg, the riders, whether they be hand icap ped or otherwise, have by virtue of extra money bei ng put in by the Provincial Government, had their rates frozen. MR. USKIW: We ll, Mr. Chairman, the member is ref erring to transit rates. We don't have a transit opera tion in Steinbac h, so there's no comparison there. We'r e tal king about two dif ferent programs. MR. BANMAN: We ll, Mr.

Chai rman, there is within the structure of the City of Winnip eg, there's a Handi Transit program. MR. USKIW: That may be. MR. BANMAN: And what the government has done is they have frozen the rates on those Handi Transit vans as well as the regular riders. So, all I'm asking is for the same treat ment for rural areas with regards to this, that's all. MR. USKIW: Wel l, agai n I want to suggest to the member that the operating end is operated by the local com munities. The provi nce provides grants for operating and for capital purposes.

The user pays 25 percent of the operati ng cost, only of the operating cost at the local lev el. 75 percent of that program is covered by a combi nation of grants, the provinc e and the local communi ty. So the users are only picking up a quarter of the cost. So if. the costs go up, the users are picking up a quarter of the increase and the prov ince is picking up 50 percent of the increase and the local com munity is picking up 25 percent of the increase. So that, in essence, if there is an increase in overall costs, your users are picking up the smalle st portion. MR.

BANMAN: But if your 25 percent, there have been some fa irly substa ntial costs for a number of reasons, but the point I'm trying to make is that in rural areas, people that use the Handi Transit, the handi capped, are going to pay more for riding that system this year than they did la st year. In the Ci ty of Win nipeg, the person riding a Handi Transit service oper ated by the City of Winnip eg by virtue of the Provi ncial Go vernment throwing in extra doll ars, is going to have his rate frozen. So, all I say to you, Mr.

Minister, is that right on the one hand that a person who happens to li ve in the City of Winnip eg riding a Handi Transit unit has his or her rate frozen, and the people in the rural areas are bei ng asked to pay a dollar a ride more. That's the only point I'm making. I apprecia te that this was probably not consi dered at the time when the announcement was made for the rate freeze here in the city. All I'm saying is that I think we should treat the rural people that are handic apped the same way we would treat the people in the Cit y of Winnip eg.

If the City of Winnip eg handicap ped riders don't have to pay any extra, why not giv e the same thing to rural Manitoba? MR. USKIW: We ll, Mr. Chairman, the mem ber ought to apprecia te the fact that this particular program is brand new virtually - is it a year old? is it two years old? - in the rural ar eas and the grant system has been struck and the agreements have been sig ned with the local communities. It is not something that's been ongoing as has been the transit system in the Ci ty of Winnip eg.

The Ci ty of Wi nnipeg has a greater di mension att ached to policy decision making and has to do with keeping cars off the street; with encouraging people to use buses; has to do with the purchase of Fly er buses manufactu red in Winnip eg -(I nterjection)- I supp ose it has; if it doesn't it should have. -(I nterjection)- wel l, I don't know. But in any event, there are all sorts of other di mensions that enter into the Ci ty of Winnip eg arrangement and the two pro grams are not analagous whatever. There is no com parison between the two. MR.

BAN MAN: Wel l, I just asked the Minister that as this program dev elops, and I realize it's a relatively new program and it was brought on because of some thing the Federal Government was involved with and left the provinc e and the municip al ities with, but I ask him that he does, as this program developed, under take at least to look at the - I don't want to cal l it a disp arity - but at least that there is some equity between what happens in the rural ar eas with regards to Handi Transit and in Wi nnipeg areas.

I think that these people in the rural areas, because of the di stan ces they have to travel and other things, should not be penal ized just because they don't li ve in the City of Winnip eg. I don't think their rates should be any higher than the city if we are al ready throwing $2 milli on to $3 mill ion to stab lizing Wi nnipeg rates. So, I just throw that out. I know it's a new program, but I would hope that the Min ister would keep that in the back of his mind so that we people in rural Man itoba are treated the same way as our city cousins are. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Portage La Prai rie. MR.

LLOYD HYDE (Por tage La Prairie): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Minis ter, I may be out of order on this because I possibly passed the Min ister's salary; I know I am for that matter. 1136 MR. CHAIRMAN: We 'll come back to the Min ister's Salar y when we're finish ed. MR. HYDE: I'm aware of that, but I'm wonderi ng if you'll allo w me to speak on the Ci ty of Portage la Prairie at this time, Mr. Minister? MR. USKIW: It doesn't matter. MR. HYDE: Thank you very much. I apprecia te, Mr.

Minister, the fact that you are completing the 1.7 -mile approach to the west end of the City of Portage la Prairie and from the 1 A Hig hway to Twenty-Sec ond Street. But there are a couple of points that I'd lik e to bring to your attention if I may at this time. First, I didn' t mention that I apprecia te the fact that you're going to comple te that work at the west end from the 1A to Twenty-Second Street. There's one point that I'm very concerned about, Mr. Min ister, is the fact that there are uncontrol led ligh ts at this intersection. Com ments have been made in the past by our local

Monday, 5 April, 1982 highways engi neer that the need was not there; that trafic counts had been made in the past that indi cates to him and to the department that traff ic lig hts were not warranted. Wel l, this might be so according to his theory, but I' ve got to look after the welfare of the people of Portage la Prai rie. You're quite aware of the fact, Mr Minister, that we lost a lif e in Portage la Prai rie due to a hit-a nd-run acc ident at this particular inter section. I'm appeal ing to you, Mr. Minister, before there's a second li fe taken, that you act on this particu lar case.

I spoke to you personally on it and I do bel ieve that you are aware and sympathetic to the cause. However, beyond that I do think and I hope that a second li fe will not be taken before the acti on on your department be taken to supply these lig hts. Mr. Minister I don't know what more I can say and any more I can ple ad to you on this case. I pray to you to instal control lig hts now while the construction is being taken on this particular intersection. There is one more item I'd lik e to bring to your attention if I may at this time. It's on Page No. 1 on your program for 1982-83.

It is brought to my atten tion here where you have 1 A, 1.4 miles, rail way cross ing west of Portge la Prai rie, east of west terminal, Portage la Prairie. I wonder, Mr. Minister, if you cou ld and would ex plain to me what this entails? Yes, this acq uisition of right of way. MR. USKIW: We ll, Mr. Chairman, this is a carry-over part of our program. It's not a new program. It's acq ui sition of right of way that has not yet been comp leted, so it's really comple ting what's been ongoing MR. HYDE: Mr. Minis ter, may I ask you, is this a carry over of the past; the government's approach to the overpass? MR.

USKIW: Yes, I'm led to bel ieve that's where it is. MR. HYDE: Could you indic ate to me, Mr. Minis ter, just when this overpass may occur to Portage la Prai rie because when I ask you, we have probably - well there's - what would there be? - a quarter to half -a -mile of traff ic jam up both east and west of that crossing that occurs every time a train crosses that approach. You are aware of the fact that it is the main line of the CPR? MR. USKIW: Yeah, I'm told that there is al ready an overpass built there. You are alluding to a dif ferent one. You're alluding to the one over the railway track.

There is one overpass al ready built on this loca tion. MR. HYDE: Oh no, but that's downtown sector. I'm· asking you about your consider ation for the fact that we do need an overpass from the city west to the new mall west of Portage la Prai rie. MR. USKIW: I'm advi sed by the department that's in the early plan ning stages at this time. MR. HYDE: Thank you, I certainly will be on your tai·I for the next two or three years or whatever it might be, looking for your consideration. I want to, Mr. Minis ter, if maybe you will permit me to approach the subject of the downtown Sas katchewan Avenue, at this time.

We ll, as you are quite aware of the fact, myself and the previous Mayor of the da y and the present Mayor, Mayor Greenslade, have been working with the pre vious government as wel l as, I bel ieve, your govern ment, that the need is very very promi nent in the fact that we do need our Saskatchewan Avenue upgraded. Mr. Min ister, I belie ve you are aware of the fact that the Ci ty of Portage la Prairie today is ready and willin g to meet with some of the - I'm sorry, I have to go through this -(l nterjec tion)-no, I don't bel ieve it is; I'm aware of that, I'll put it that way.

I'm aware of the fact that it's not. But however, the need for the upgrad ing of our avenue has been on the planning of the previous government and I'm hoping that you are making every consider ation to the fact that Saska tch ewan Avenue in Portage la Prai rie has been given every consi deration of the need for the upgrading of that Avenue. It is in a deplorable state. The Ci ty of Portage la Prai rie today, I am informed by the Mayor, is ready and will ing and I have to say that it is a primary step that must be taken to make sure that the surface water drai nage system of the Avenue must be met and, Mr.

Minis ter, they are ready and willing to meet that obli gation, and I hope that you will be giving that consid eration to Portage la Prairie, if not the next year, the second or third year from now. That avenue has been in need of upgrading as I've explai ned to you in the past and I would only ask you once aga in to give it every consider ation in the future, that we work together on this along with the Mayor and the Ci ty Cou ncil of Portage la Prai rie and see if this work can be done. I have, Mr. Min ister, other issues that I want to bri ng up to you for your consi deration later on in your Esti mates.

At this time this is about all I have to bring up. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Vir den. Mr. Minister. MR. USKIW: Perhaps I should respond to the Member for Portage la Prairie and then we could get on with the Memb er for Virden. No, I am aware of the situation with respect to the desi re on the part of people in the area of Portage la Prai rie for a traff ic li ght at the west end of the city.

The department hopefull y, will be able to bring us a report on that one at some point in the not too di stant future to determine whether the evidence that we have con curs with the feelings of the people out there. I'm incli ned to think you're right, althou gh I don't know it personally. There's probably a great deal of new traf fic generated there because of the shopping mall that's been buil t and so on, so there's probably quite a lot of support or logic for moving in that di rection. The other has to do with Saska tchewan Avenue.

Unfortunately, because of the timing of our Estima tes here, I had to cancel a meeting that I had arranged with the Mayor of Portage la Prairie for this week on that very issue but we will be getting together some time after this process is over. But I am aware of their desi res. I know that there's a tremendous amount of underground work, so to speak, or exca vation work that has to be undertaken which would not be under taken unless there's assurance that there would be a 1137

Monday, 5 Apri l, 1982 new pavement, or a new surface applied, which makes sense; one can't go without the other. I don't know what the figur es are. We haven't had it quanti fied yet as to the cost but we will be discus sing that with your Mayor fa irly soon. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Portage la Prairie . MR. HY!)E: Mr.

Chai rman, if I may, to the Min ister, once again express my concern and I speak I'm sure, on behalf of the people of Portage la Prairie and not only to the people of Portage la Prairie but those many hundreds of people who are dealing at the new Mal l west of Portage la Prai rie, the dangerous position that your government today - and I have to confess that I spoke to my Min ister of the previous government for every consi deration to install that light - and you were going to do it but I had no defi nite ass urance that he was.

But I want to put it in your lap today, that should there be a second hit-and-run acc ident as there was in the la st three weeks or month, should that happen, I'll be right back on your tail. I'll be right back on your tai l, Sir . I want you to once again, giv e every consideration to the fact that that is a busy intersec tion and that it is most urgent that you deal with that. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I am advised by the Dep uty Min ister that once the construction is comple te we have every intention of instal ling a traffic ligh t there. MR. HYDE: Wo uld you repeat that, please? MR.

USKIW: When the construction part of it is com pleted, we have every intention of instal ling a traffic ligh t there. MR. HYDE: When it is comp leted? Are you going to do this work this summer? I want to know. Wel l, the work is going to be completed, as I understand, yes. MR. USKIW: I know the mem ber is trying to pin me down specific ally on the project. From what I know of the project it would be illo gical not to complete it. I don't foresee any reason why it won't be comple ted this summer - that particular sect ion - and along with the traffic li ght that goes in there.

I can't imagine what would prevent us from doing it, that's all I can say. MR. HYDE: We ll, Mr. Minister, I have every indic ation that the work will be comple ted, the upgrading of that from 1A east to the junction of 22nd Street. That will be comple ted this year. Now I'm as king you, will you include the installa tion of ligh ts at that street? MR. USKIW: Tha t's what I had just indic ated, that on completion of the construction portion of that project, will follo w the installa tion of the traffic lig ht. MR. HYDE: This year? MR. USKIW: If we have the time I bel ieve we will do it this year.

If logistics are right, yes. MR. HYDE: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Vi rden. MR. HARRY GRAHAM (Vir den): Thank you, Mr. Chai rman. I reali ze that in this Commit tee, everybody wants to have their own li ttle say on thei r own li ttle things. I want to get back to something that the Min is ter said when he was in discussion with the Honour able Member for Pembi na. I think at that time he was deal ing with the projected needs of transportation up to the year 1 990 and I was a li ttle vag ue on the figu res, was it by 1990 that coal would quadruple, was that right? MR.

USKIW: 14 milli on - 53 milli on tons. MR. GRAHAM: From 14 to 53, well that's pretty nearly quad rupled. And the fi.gures on grai n, has the Minister got the figures on grain? MR. USK IW: Mr. Chairman, just to repeat, on coal the tonnages ex pected are going to be 53.3 mil lion tons by 1990, as com pared to 14. 1 in 1980. On grain the 1990 fig ure is 19 millio n tons, as opposed to 10 mill ion tons in 1980. In sulphur 6.8 in 1990 agai nst 5.4 in 1980; potash 9 milli on tons in 1990, as opposed to 3.6 in 1980. MR. GRAHAM: Wel l, Mr.

Chairman, when the Min is ter - and I'll leave coal out of it because I don't think we have too much coal in Manitoba - maybe the Minister has a new formula for producing coal, I'm not too sure, if he has I would welcome his formula for pro ducing it. But, his fig ures on potash, I am a li ttle interested in. Now when he quotes those fig ures on potash is he including a Manitoba potash mine in those fig ures or are those fig ures left out? MR. USKIW: Those figu res come out of the Potash Associa tion, Mr.

Chairman, and I would hazard a guess that they would n't have projected production in Manitoba at this stage. MR. GRAHAM: So then the Minister is putting for ward these fi gures for potash production and he's real ly not taking into consideration any potash pro duction in the Provinc e of Manitoba at all , is that correct? MR. USKIW: Wel l, Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal of specula tion as to the direction of the flow of potash, if it were to be produced in Manitoba, and the logic seems to sugge st that it would go east and south, rather than west.

And what we are tal king about in these figures are the tonnages that will have to be hauled through the mountains of British Col umbia, result of which the railw ays say they need $1 5 billi on to add new trackage through the mountains and some tunneling, and a number of other things. So, really it's a matter of which direction potash is going to be moving from Man itoba that will determine whether these figur es are right or whether they should be added to or whatever. 1138 MR.

GRAHAM: Wel l, maybe I could ask the Minister, the fig ures that are projected are only those fig ures that are dealing with the movement of potash by rail,

Monday, 5 April, 1982 is that in Canada or is that in North America? MR. USKIW: As I understand it it's the movement of potash, coal, grain, sulphur , to the west coast ports of Canada. MR. GRAHAM: Only to the west coast ports in Can ada and has nothing to do with the movement through the American ports? MR. USKIW: That is correct, Mr. Chai rman. MR. GRAHAM: We ll then, that does not include the present sales of potash that are bei ng trucked ac ross the American border and then transported by rail to the west coast for west coast shi pment.

Those fig ures are not incl uded in the present figures that the Minis ter has given? MR. USKIW: Not if they're using American transpor tation systems, Mr. Chairman. MR. GR AHAM: Wel l, Mr . Chai rman, in order to understand the potash industry, and I'm not too sure there are too many members in his assembly that do understand the potash industry, least of whom is myself, but I do li ve fai rly clo se to it and I have a fai r working knowledge of the potash industry but I don't profess to know all of the workings of the potash industry at all.

But, when the Min ister gives almo st a three-time multiplic ation fac tor in the next nine years in transportation of potash in Canada, by rail, I would presume that he must have some inside knowledge that would allo w him to make those kind of projec tions and I was wondering if the Minister would give us the benefit of that knowledge, as wel l, so that we could more properly assess the potash industry. MR. USKIW: Wel l, Mr.

Chairman, this is not new knowledge, this is the basis of dis cussion that we are now involved with in respect to the Pepin proposals on the Crow rate and the need for upgrading the rail way system into the west coast port area, CN-CP. All of this information flows from organizations and the Government of Canada, WEST AC is one of those organiz ations that seems to hinge on those fig ures. They are certainly not new figue s they've been around for a couple of years. We've looked at them a week ago at the WEST AC meeting and the consensus was that those figures would be unchanged at this point in time.

So that they are still projecting the same tonnages. MR. GRAHAM: We ll, Mr.

Chairman, in order to ascer tain the val id ity of those figures, and knowing some thing about the lead time that it takes to bring a potash mine into production, and knowing some of the pro jections that are presently in the potash field, and knowing that most of the potash mines that are pres ently in production are operating at near capacity, I would lik e to know what projected potash mines are bei ng brought into production before 1990 which would al most triple the amount of potash that would be moving by rail to the west coast through Canada.

Now, I understand that there is conside rable activit y in potash in the Maritime s but I don't think that they 1139 have any intention of moving it by rail all across Can ada to the west coast. So if the Min ister can give me any information on the projections tha t are his fig ures, not mine, I would certainly apprecia te some inside information that he may have. MR. USKIW : Wel l, Mr.

Chairman, I don't belie ve I rela ted my figures, I bel ieve I said I related industry fig ures that had been presented to government and to industry for discussion over the la st couple of years, and they may or may not be accu rate. The discus sions that were held in Calg ary las t week seemed to result in confirmation of those same fig ures by the very same industry groupings that were there. But I have no way of knowing whether they are overly optim istic or whether, in fact, that is a bit of an artifi cial thrust to get the railw ay expansion going that seems to be desi red at the present time.

But, in any event, those are industry fig ures, they are not depart mental fig ures. MR. GR AHAM: So the Min ister, in essence, is tel ling us that he has no way of knowing whether the figures that he's using are accu rate or whether they're not accu rate, is that correct? MR. USKIW: I'm advi sed by the transportation people that we have not done a cross-ex ami nation or ana ly sis of those figures, Mr. Chairman. MR. GR AHAM: We ll, Mr. Chairman, I know nothing at al l about the sulphur part of it so I'll leave the sulphur part out.

In the grain projections, the Minister has indi ca ted that the movement of grain to the west coast will incr ease from 10 mill ion to 19 milli on tons. On those fig ures, can the Minis ter indicate what statisti cal backgr ound he bases that increase on? MR. USKIW: We ll, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not as optim istic, personally, as those fi gures would imply. Those fig ures are Canad ian Whe at Board fig ures, but I'm not sure that that is something that we will realiz e in the next decade. That's a doubling of production and I just don't quite see that in the next 10 years, but that's an opinion.

Those fi gures are Cana dia n Whe at Board fig ures. MR. GR AHAM: We ll, Mr. Chairman, I think we heard the Min ister stand up in the House the other da y initiating his deb ate on the Crow rate. I think he used a variety of figures and I'm not too sure whether these figu res were invol ved in it or not, but I would hope that, if the Minister is using figur es and he's not too sure of them, I would hope that he would n't use them. But if he is using fig ures I hope that he would do the necessary research and find out whether or not those figures are accu rate.

I am one of those who's in the grain busi ness and I liv e in the hopes that the fig ures, the projections for 1990, are accu rate because, in the grai n industry, we do see a decl ining role in the St. Lawrence Seawa y and the use of the Port of Thu nder Bay because of the activitie s of the Eu ropean economic market. The whole thrust of long-term grain movement seems to be on the Pacific rim and I would hope that those markets do develop to the interest of western

Monday, 5 Apri l, 1982 Canada and, if they do deve lop to the interest of west ern Canada, the role of the Province of Manitoba becomes more important than ever beca use transpor tation from Manitoba to the West Coast is a greater dis tance than it is from the Province of Saska tchewan; it's a much greater di stance than it is from the Prov ince of Al berta and it's a far greater dif ference than it is from the interior of the Province of B.C.

So, if the movement of grain and the sale of grain is increasing in the Pac ific rim, then the role that the Provinc e of Manitoba takes in the protection of the interests of the fa rmers of Manitoba bec omes ever-incr easingly important because, up to now, our major movement of grai n has been through the Port of Thund er Bay. I think about 11 percent of our grain has moved west; I pred ict - and I haven't got any figur es in front of me - that within 10 years' time 25 percent of our grain will move west.

But I hope the Min ister has done his homework on the figures that he is using and I would certainly be interested in looking at the figur es that he is using and the projections and the bas is on which he bases those projections. MR. USKIW: We ll, Mr. Chairman, all of these are spe culat ive thi ngs. There's no way that anyone is able to docume nt precisely what will happen in the next 10 years. There are assumptions in all of the cal cula tions that are made and there are many variab les that come along the way that could change the results.

These are Whe at Board fi gures and whether grain moves east or west is really irreleva nt as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman. What is relevant is the cost of movi ng grain to the people that have to move it and whether or not public policy ought to be such that we would want to maintain minimum costs in that area for the general well-bei ng of, not only the producers, but the econ omy of the prairie region; that's really what we're talking about.

If there's any philo sophical dif ference on the cost of transporting grain, to the extent that agricultur e doesn't have a bargai ning position in the world market, then we tend to prefer the more beneficial approach with respect to the cost of transporting grain to the ports of Canada on the part of our pro duc ers. If there was a bargaining position, or if the farmers of the prairies could pass on added cost, then of course we would be less concerned about the dra matic cost increases tha t are bei ng proposed. MR. GRAHAM: We ll, Mr.

Chairman, I have to tell you that I'm somewhat flabber gasted when the Min ister says that we have no bargaining position. Is the Min is ter willing to sit down and let the whole agricultur al economy of Manitoba just go by the wayside? He says we're in no bargai ning position whatsoever? I just can 't accept that. I think that the bargaining position for the sale of grain in Manitoba, in western Canada, in North Ame rica, in any part of the world is increas ing daily as the need for grain becomes greater. So when the Minister tells me that there is no bargaining position I just can not accept that philosophy.

Because I know that, from my own personal experience in the grain tr ade, that the barga ining position is ge tting better daily, that if a person knows what he'.s doing in the grain trade he can make better deals daily. The fa rmer can survive, can improve his lot in li fe if go v ernment would just get out of his way and that is one of the problems that the grain trade is fa cing today.

We find governments standing up, supposedly, when the First Min ister is saying that we're going to li ve in a new era, when we're going to li ve in a world of co-operativ e federalism, and we find the Min ister of Highw ays bringing forward a resolution in the House where he says, in his words, and I'm paraphrasing, that he refuses to negotiate. Is that co-operativ e fed eral ism? Is that the way that we're going? Who is it, in the government of this provinc e, that is speak ing? We find the Fi rst Min ister saying one thing; we find the Min ister of Hig hways saying another thing.

The fa rmers of this provinc e want to know who is it that is speaking for the fa rmers? But so far we haven't come to any logical concl usion and the fa rmers are getting more frustrated when they hear the First Minister say ing that we're into a new era of co-operative fed eral ism; and then they hear the Min ister of Hig hways saying that the Crow rate is not negotiable, we refuse to sit down at the table with them.

I want to know what is happening in this province, and perhaps we should start with the Min ister of Highw ays, maybe he can tel l us whether they are willing to sit down and negotiate with the Federal Government or not. MR. USKIW: Wel l, Mr. Chairman, I would lik e to, first of all, point out to the Member for Vi rden that when I all uded to the fact , and it is a fact , that fa rmers don't have a bargai ning positio n, I all uded to it on the basis that they are not in a position to directly transfer new cost increases into the price of their production whenever they have those increases.

That doesn't mean that indirect bargaining positions don't improve; that doesn't mean that as the world has greater demand for their production that they are not in a better bargaining position. But I think the best exam ple of that is in the last year, the cu rrent prices of wheat for exa mple, as I recall them, are below what they were a year ago, notwithstanding the fact of high interest rates and very high infla tion on costs of inputs and so on.

So, they don't have a means of passing through the market system added burdens or added costs and that has been the nature of the ind ustry sinc e ever it was an industry ana it continues to be that way.

I'm tal king about grain production that is exported, in particu lar. 1140 With respect to refusing to bargain the Crow, the member, I don't recall I bel ieve he was in the House when I introducted the resolution and subsequently spoke on the resolution, wherein I had indic ated that the Government of Man itoba or the Governments of the Prairie s were not in a position to negotiate because the Government of Cana da has announced a new polic y and, in announcing that policy, indic ated that it is their jurisdic tion and that they do not intend to negotiate with the provi ncial governments but they will interface and di alogue with the affected people, namely, producer organizations and the oil and crushing ind ustry and so on, to refine the decision that they've al ready made; that is the substa nce of the announcement.

The decision is made, the mechanics are yet to be refi ned, and we are not intending to negotiate with the provinces. Now, we have not negotiated with the Government

Monday, 5 April, 1982 of Canada because they have not offered that oppor tunity to us. Tha t is the reason why we are suggesting. by way of Reso lution in the Leg islatur e. that it was a unila teral action on the part of the Gov ernment of Canada and that the only means of alteri ng the di rec tion that is bei ng proposed is through public knowl edge of the issue. the di ssemi nation of information. which we are making possible, and as much debate as is humanly possible before the legisla tion is intro duc ed in the House of Commons next Oc tober.

So it's merely a time frame with in which people and, in par ticula r, the producers must work with in, and wherein the governments of the prairies have very li ttle abil ity, if you lik e. in terms of negotiating abil ity. to have much of a say since they are not party to those dis cussions. MR. GRAHAM: Wel l, Mr.

Chairman, that creates an even greater problem, because when I hear the First Minister of the Provi nce of Manitoba announce that we are now in a new spirit of co-opera tive federalism and we're going to have dialogue and all the rest of it, and the Federal Government, after just hearing the words of our new Premi er. more or less turns around and thumbs their nose at them and says, we're not interested in you, we're going to go our own way; where does that le ave the Province of Manitoba for the next four years?

In essence, the First Minister of our Country has turned his back on our Premier and that causes me concern, and if it causes me concern, Mr. Chairman, it should cause Minis ters of this prov ince much more concern because I was under the impression that the Fi rst Minister of this Province had offered the olive branch and. instead . the ol ive branch has been dis carded and we now see the cl aws of total federal control. those talons coming in and grasping and our First Min ister is sayi ng. we're lovely people, we liv e in a spirit of co-operative feder alism.

When is this province going to start and fig ht back to protect the people of Man itoba, because it's the people of Manitoba that need the protection? And if the First Minister of this Province isn't prepared to give it then we are in serious di ff icu lty. MR. USKIW: Wel l. Mr. Chairman. I think that while we don't appreciate the fact that we are not pla ying a major role in the decision that is going to take pla ce, we also recognize the fact that we don't have a juris dic tional role to pla y in that area.

Transportation, through the rail way system, is indeed a prerogative of the Government of Canada and has been since ever I can recall it - wel l. I guess there are some provincial railways but not very many, there's one in Al berta and one in Brtish Columbia - but. by and lar ge, the trans portation by rail is national jurisdiction and they do have the right to move, with or without an agreement from anyone province or a col lection of provinc es that may be affected one way or the other. I don't fau lt them necessarily for using that right.

Logically we would prefer that there would be a consensus but to be fai r to the Government of Cana da I don't think there can be a consensus. you know; because we have a dif ference of viewpo int as between governments on the prai ries on the issue. British Col umbia wants to see those coal fields deve loped; British Col umbia wants to see the $1 5 billi on expended 1141 within their bounda ries to buoy-up their economy. and they are not terribly concerned about the grain transportation end of it si nce they don't have any to speak of.

So you do ha ve a situation where the Gov ernment of Canada could not expec t overwhel ming consensus on the part of the provinces across this country on that kind of an issue. So I don't want to terribly fa ult them for movi ng unila terally in a direction that they are going. even if I don't agree with it.

I don't think that detracts at all from the need to try to work out an arrangement with the Gov ernment of Canada that is much more fle xible than it has been in recent years. that is much more concil iatory, if you lik e. beca use Manitoba can not affo rd to get into a position of taking an adversary approach, in principle, to the Government of Canada, no matter who that government is. We happen to derive a tremendous amount of our fiscal capacity via the federal purse. Mr. Chairman. through transfer payments and through cost-s hared ag reements.

Transfer payments alone la st year amounted to some thing in excess of $400 milli on. I for one would not be terribly comfortable with the idea that some people put forward and that is to identif y the national gov ernment as being the enemy of the people; I don't look at it that way whatsoever. Mr. Chairman. I think we have to work with whoever is there at any given moment and work to our best advantage but we should never take the position of burning our bridge s in the dialogue that must take place between provin cial and national governments. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1( d)(1 ) Salaries. The Member for Pembina. MR.

ORCHARD: The Minis ter made some rather interesting sum-up remarks there - and I hope I can't interpret what he said as bei ng because the Federal Government provides such a sizable chunk of provin cial revenue - that we can no longer afford to oppose what is obviously bei ng done incorrectly by the Fed eral Government and havi ng an impact upon our pro vince.

I hope that isn't the kind of co-operative federal ism in this new era that Premier Pawley has been espousing publ icly, that because the Federal Gov ernment represents a big chunk of our revenues. we go down and hold hands with the Prime Min ister and hope that he sees fit to treat us well becaus e I think very recent history shows that the Provi nce of New Brunswick tried that approach with very li ttle positive result.

I still maintain that if your case is correct, as often the provincial case has been with the Federal Gov ernment, that you're much better off stating it and stating it wel l in defen ding the public interests of the people of Man itoba than remai ning rather sile nt and allowing a Federal Gove rnment because they can at a whim reduce revenues to the provi nce. carr y on in a manner that's unacceptable to the majority of the people in the Province of Manit oba.

So I hope the Minis ter's leader in his new federal co-operation isn't prepared to become a doormat for Ottawa and I cer tai nly don't think this Min ister is indica ting that. MR. USKIW: Wel l, Mr. Chairman, I've had my share of dialogue and confrontation from time to time over the

Monday, 5 April, 1982 years with the Government of Canada or with various Ministers of the Government of Canada. Transporta tion was one of them, a few years ago when Otto Lang was the Min ister: he was also the Minister in charge of Canadian Wh eat Board, we had a number of confron tations. That never detracts though from the fact that We do have to conti nue the di alogue and we do have to wotk with the Govern ment of Canada, whoever they are. We can exp ress our disp leas ure from time to time but in the end we have to sit down and work out an arrangement.

Indis cri minate bashing of the national system is not a constructive approach and I don't belie ve in it, Mr. Chairman. One of the greatest tragedy of Canada is the fact that the provi nces were given the rights to resources in my opinion, one of the greatest traged ies. One way that is bei ng redressed in some meas ure is the fact that the Government of Canada has a system known as equal iza tion pay ments, which means the transfer of wealth back from the resource-rich provi nces back to the non resource-rich provi nces but it's a long way around.

You get irito that confrontation as between the Pre mier of Al berta and the Prime Minister of Canada over how much of the oil revenue should go into the federal purse and there's some real federai bashing taking place. Wha t does it result in? It results in more inequity as between the provinces every time one provinc e wins that argument. No, we need a strong central govern ment, Mr. Chairman. I don't for one moment take the position that it's comfortab le to knock the hell out of Ottawa. MR. ORCHARD: Very interesting, Mr. Chairman. Possibly it might be opportune to change the subject.

I think we can get back on this topic under the Min is ter's Salar y. Wi ll staff from Transportation Division be available as resource people to attend public meetings tha t may be calle d to di scuss the whole Crow rate issue over the next several months? MR. USKIW: We ll, Mr. Chairma n, that is precisely the intent. We will beg in that process hopefully Wed nes day at 4:30 if we have concurrence from the Opp osi tion.

They will be the fi rst to view the information package in the way that the Transportation Division is able to present it and from that point on we will make that package available to any intested group through out Manitoba and certainly to all of those groups that have exte nded an invita tion to my office to appear at their level and in their communities to present the same information to them.

So we think that there will be a fa ir opportunity through that process for political people at the provincial lev el, municip al level , vari ous organiza tions and indeed the rank and file producers out there who have a very deep interest to view the information as a neutral piece of this exercise.

If there's going to be any dis cussion with a bia s in it, it will have to be a politic al discussion but that particu lar part of the debate is going to be technical part, strictly based on facts as we have them and we hope that the people will use that information t6 whatever advantage they may in the dia logue with th.e Govern ment of Canada. MR. ORCHARD : So then I take it that people who are fa irly conversant with rail transportation such as say Mr. Scha fer, even Dr. Rea would from time to time be avai lable for farm or for public meetings in rural Manitoba. MR. USKIW: Yes, that is the intent. MR.

ORCHARD: Will Mr. Janssen be a resource per son used by the Minister to present the Provincial Government position at any of these rural meetings? MR. USKIW: Mr. Chai rman, the politic al position will be presented by a political person. A technical pres entation will be by Dr. Rea - he's a doctor, right - and his staff. MR. ORCHARD: Who might the person be who will present the political? MR. USKIW: It'll either be myself or other Ministers that will have to take on some of the meetings if I'm not avai lable, or ML As if they wish. MR. ORCHARD: This wouldn't incl ude such political people as say Mr.

Shafransky or Mr. Janssen then. MR. USKIW: I would n't ex pect it to incl ude those, no, other than in the form of technical assist ance if you like to the Min ister. They could be part of the entour age if you lik e but strictly a political profile as di stinct from the technical expertise that we will have along with us. There are two components, Mr. Chairman, if I may, there are two components to the exercised; one Will be the government position and the other will be the straight technic al data that will be made avai lable. MR.

ORCHARD: Not wanting to get a sneak preview of Wed nesday if it should occur, but could the Min is ter indic ate whether central to the technical presenta tion by staff will be such items as the Turcheniewich Report? MR.

USKIW: All of the information that has been dis tributed in the House and perhaps other pieces of informati on will be dealt with by·the technical com mittee, based on data, based on statistics, based on facts and, I suppose, based on projections which ar e based on the best avai lable fi gures given to us by the Government of Canada through their Minister who has put the proposal on the table. MR.

ORCHARD: Some of the concern, and it was emphasized somewhat today in the handout that the Minis ter- I don't have it in front of me - but, at any rate, he gave us the one times Crow, two times Crow, three times Crow, exercise in showing to producers what their costs in the various regions of the provinc e should be.

One of the concerns I've had is that there is some confusion amongst the farming public that that is, in effect, what will happen tomorrow should the Pepin proposal be adopted, i.e. that they're imme dia tely into the Turcheniewich position of having to pay 3.4 times Crow, if that should be what is deter mined to be compensatory for the rail roads. The cur rent information, and I emphasize the word informa- 1142

Mon day, 5 April, 1982 tion, that the Mini ster has made avai lable does centre substantially on the Turcheniewich Report and the la test handout today gives an indic ation to the farmer, and tends to leave the impression, that he will be paying some multiple of Crow immedia tely which, to my und erstanding, is not correct, in view of the pro posal made by Pepi n.

Certainly in 1 O year's time, with whatever portion of the incremental costs are required to be picked up or may be required to be picked up by the farmer, what ever portion that is, and whatever the increase in costs are, certainly the farmer may pay, in 19 90, some mul tiple of Crow.

But clearly the impression that a lot of producers have today in rural Manitoba, based on prel imi nary information received from the Minister in his origi nal resolution, etc., seemed to have raised the concern amongst the producers that immediately with the adoption of the Pepin proposal, if it cle ars all the hoops, that they will be paying some multiple of Crow. I think that is not certai nly what the producers will have to face if a modific ation comes out as a result of the Gil lson Inquir ies.

So, could the Min ister indicate whether the empha sis of the information, the technic al information, will dwell on farmer contributions of some multiple of Crow when, in fact, the Minister does not know that will be what is asked of the producers in terms of a contribution to pay for the freight rate? MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I bel ieve that if the member wis hes to review the information that we have tabled, we have taken into acc ount the current status of federal comm itment, and their projected commitment, as stated in the Pepin proposal, and worked out the affect on a 10 -year basis of the number of times Crow, shall we say, the user will have to pay, given all of those comm itments. If you look at those stats, as I recall it, in the first year there will be a very substantial increase, something lik e, what is it .8?

If you look on a per ton rate the base rate is $5.0 5 a ton, and in the fi rst year it mo ves up to $7.22 a ton. - (I nterjection)- I did table copies of that. I don't have it with me here. MR. ORCHARD: I guess my question to the Minister is, it is my understanding that the Pepin proposal says that as of, I bel ieve it's 19 8-, is it 1 or 2? MR. USKIW: 19 81 is the base year. MR. ORCHARD: 19 81 is the base year and the Fed eral Government has agreed to pay whatever the Crow gap is. MR. USKl .W: $61 2 mill ion. MR.

ORCHARD: Wel l, but basical ly it's whatever the Crow gap is, to bring the railroads up to a compensa tory rate, I bel ieve is the term that's used. Then there is a negotiation with the producer organiz ation that's bei ng undertaken by Dr. Gil lson now which is going to recommend to the Federal Gov ernment a formula by which three groups, as I understand it, may wel l split the future increase in cost ab ove the 19 81 base li ne; and those three groups, as I understand them, are the Federal Government, the two rail roads and the 1143 producers.

So, what the Min ister is tel ling us then is that in 19 82, giving compensatory rates are some thing lik e three times Crow, and let's . MR. USKIW: 1. 8 times Crow in 19 82. MR. ORCHARD: The cost of movi ng grai n is 1. 8 times Crow in 19 82? MR. USKIW : Yes. Mr.

Chairman, if you look at the compensatory rate formula, in 19 82-83, which is the current year, if there were no additional cross subsi dies or contributions, other than the 61 2 milli on that is committed by Pepin, the producer would have to raise an extra $1 20 milli on in '82-83, which is 1. 8 times Crow; and you can foll ow that through all the way down till you get to 9.7 times Crow by 19 90-91 , and that's based on the assumption that the producer has to pick up the dif ference. MR.

ORCHARD: We ll now there is where I'm, once again, cauti oning the Minister on developi ng that kind of a chart, because he is making an assumption which I don't bel ieve he can make. Wha t basic ally his assumption is, is that the Federal Government is going to toss in $61 2 milli on per year and aftertha t the fa rmer, the producer, if he's going to ship grai n, is going to pick up 10 0 percent of any incremental cost above the 612 in his present contribution, which, Mr. Chairman, I submit the Minister can not, at this time, make that assumption.

That is causing substantial confusi on among the farm community, that these are going to be the actual impact upon him and his cost of transporting grai n. It's my understanding that the fa rmer, in the Pepin proposal, is not being expected to pick up 10 0 percent of the future costs. He may be asked to pick up some percentage of the future cost increase but it's not in my recolle ction that the Federal Government ex pects him to pick up 10 0 percent of it. When the Minister is developing figures now to pres ent as fact ual information as to the impact on Crow rate, I subm it, Mr.

Chairman, that he can't do that until: No. 1, the Gil lson Comm ittee has recomme nded a proposed spl itting between the producers, the Fed eral Government and the rail roads of future increased costs, 19 82 on, and those that have been accepted by the Federal Government. MR. USKIW : Mr. Chairman, what the Member for Pem bina fa ils to apprecia te is that the whole exercise of the Government of Canada on this issue is based on a prem ise. The premise is tha t the railways shall receive com pensatory rates. So somebody else has to pick up the bill. The railways must get paid a return on thei r investment.

That's a given in the formul a. So who else is left other than the producer and the Govern ment of Cana da? The Government of Canada said, "We know that we can't just abandon the producer, so we're going to keep up with $61 2 mil lion of subsidy which is the 19 81 level," so that 19 81 becomes the base year. After that, the inflation increases will be the responsibili ty of the producer. Now there's another dim ension to it which is both ersome and that is that the Pepin proposal does not even commit the 612 milli on to the grain industry, but leaves it open whetherthat 61 2 mill ion should go to all

Monday, 5 April, 1982 of agriculture or whether it should remain within the grain sector. If it's the broad approach, then you will have more than one times eight in the fi rst year to the grain producer for the shipping of grai n. If it's the 612 milli on directly to the grai n producer as a subsidy, then you will have 1. 8 notwithstanding, so that there is no room to argue that the rail way st-.ould pick up part of the dif ference because the whole premis e is that the railway should get paid on a compensatory rate which is the reason why we are havi ng the debate, Mr. Chairman. MR.

ORCHARD: Wel l, then is what the Minister is saying now that the federal proposal does not includ e, does not include any shari ng of future cost increases by the Federal Government and the producers and the rail roads, that is not part and parcel of the Federal Government proposal? MR. USKIW: Mr. Chair man, there is no room to dis cuss ra ilw ay shari ng or sub sid ization of grain trans portation when the whole basis of the di scussion is that the rail ways must get fully compensated with a margin of profit guaranteed .

So there's no way in which you can then say, but the railway should pick up part of the subsidy. The premise is that they should get paid full cost, plus a profit and that's the Snavely Report. Snavely sai d, and I did quote this in the Leg is latu re, that the sel ling price of export grain and grain products are not and will not be sufficient to mai ntain the financial integrity of all of the partici pants in the total production and di stribution process, producers, rail ways, el evators and storage compan ies.

Snavely says that it's just not in the cards to have a viable grain industry if we're going to have a compensatory rate to the railw ays. Somebody has to pick up some subsidy and, to date, Snavely says that really the subsidy that the railw ay was providing to the Crow rate, was a subsidy to the ind ustry. If you remove that, somebody els e has to pick that dif ference up. There is no finan cial integrity without that occu rring. The industry can not sustai n itself. So Pep in is sayi ng, okay we'll pick up $61 2 milli on. That's our share. The railways are supposed to get compensatory rates.

So they're not in the busi ness of subsidizi ng transportation for grain anymore. So there's only one person left and that's the produc er. Now, to compound that situation, is the inference in the proposal that the 612 is not locked in for grain shipme nts, but could be used for shipping cattle or oil or whateve r it is, a product of agricu lture in the prairie provinces or wherever.

So, if you take the 61 2 mil lion and you di vide that by factor which represents the production of beef, pork, poultry, oil, meal, then you end up with a much greater increase in the cost of hauling grain paid for, presumably, by the farmers that produce the grain. There is no other pla ce from which to extract the dollar s. Now, one isn't certain that the Government of Can ada won't soften on that and say, wel l al right we really can't dump all this burden onto the farmers, we'll up the ante from 61 2 to a billion.

I mean, they could say that, but in their present proposal as it is, we have calc ula ted what that means if that were irnplemented to the Manitoba farmer and to the Manitoba economy. We cannot use a premise that we hope to get a better deal , so let's come up with some fictitious fig ure based on the ex pectations of a better deal. We can only base our figures on what has been proposed, and through the debate that takes place, hopefully we will swing a better deal. But the basis is the proposal. We are stuck with Pepin's proposal and his figures whether we lik e them or we don't lik e them. MR.

ORCHARD: Wel l, Mr . Chairman, the Minister has made some very definitiv e

interpretations of the Federal Government proposal and I hate to say it, but I think he maybe mistrusts the Federal Government more than us fed-bash ing Conservati ves do, because it's my understanding and, obviously if this is the information package that the Minister is developing as a technical information package and not the politi cal package that's going to be presented as the objec tive information to the farming community, then, by golly, I' ve got to get myself some new information on the Federal Government proposal because I didn 't read in - unless the Minister has information dif fer ent from what was available, I suppose, at the time of the Pepin announcement in Winnip eg - the package of goods that he sent down, it seemed to me that the starting premise on this negotiation process headed up by Dr.

Gill son was that several things would happen; number one, that the Crow gap would be covered on grains, not mixing in the other industries of li vestock or for that matter rapeseed meal, that the Crow gap would be the kind of perpetual contribution that the Federal Government would make to the transportation of grain in western Canada. That seems to be entirely dif ferent from what the Min ister's

interpretation is and I only assume then because of that

interpretation, his information package will be developed on his

interpretation. Secondly, I was of the di stinct opinion that the whole purpose of the Gill son consultative process was to do li ttle else other than to devise a future cost-shari ng formula between the Federal Govern ment so that they would in perpetuity, add a portion of subsidy on future increase.d costs and the producer would be asked to pick up some increment of that.

It was also my understanding that the rail roads would be part of that as wel l. 1144 Now the Minister says that's not the case, that all future increase in costs, after this magical $61 2- mil lion saw-of f will come from the farmer's pocket, the producer's pocket as the shi pper of the grain. That's not my understanding of the federal proposal.

So we're going to have to carefully re-read some of the information if the Minister has new information from the Federal Government, I would certainly urge him to make all members of the House aware of this new information that leads him to the conclusions that he has given us tonight. And the second point I'd like to make, Mr.

Chai rman, is on the quotation the Minis ter has used I think, fai rly front and centre, on the Snave ly quotation that Snavely, in effect, doesn't belie ve that the grain market cannot pay all the actors in it without having subsidy coming in from some where because the system can't affo rd it. It's interest ing that the Min ister would choose that particular quote, which happens to support his position, but doesn't make any mention other than in the text of his material that he doesn't trus t Snavely's figures on

Mon day, 5 April, 1982 calcu la ting what is a compensatory rate. If I recall the analysis done on the Snavely report that's contained in the information the Minister tabled the other da y, he found a great deal of fa ult with the cost fig ures that Snavely had on the rail roads and, in effect, found them to be much higher than what they needed to recover a compensatory rate.

So, on one hand we have the Minister sa ying that Snavely has made a great point in saying the all the actors in the system can not survive without a subsidy, on the other hand he essential ly tears down the Snavely Report in saying that their cost analysis of rail way shipping costs are not accu rate. If the Snavely Report is only half -accu rate some where, I suppose it's a val ue judg ment as to which

part is accu rate; if the cost analysis by Snavely is inaccu rate in the Minis ter's estimation, maybe also is the statement that the Min ister is fond of quoting by Snavely equally inacc urate. MR. USKIW: Wel l, Mr.

Chairman, the Memb er for Pembina may or may not wish to interpret the Pepin proposal in the way that we think is accu rate and that's a point that can be debated, but if you look at point five on his proposal, having to do with the dis tor tions, he says the economic dis tortions with in the agricultural sector stemming from statutory rate should be reduced without recourse to new transpor tation sub sid ies for crops not covered by the present statutory rate or for goods such as liv estock and pro cessed agricultur al products.

So, if there is not a new subsidy dol lar, but the dif ference in the freight rates ought to be brought together, then it impli es that it may be the 61 2 mil lion has to be di vided by every body in the system rather than by the grain producer who has enjoyed that subsidy to date. That's the only

interpretation you can give that section, Mr. Chair man. Now that's there for discussion and I don't know what's going to come out of that di scussion, but it does raise the possibil ity that the federal comm itment is a subsidy to all products produc ed in agricultur e, rather than a commitment of 61 2 milli on or whatever the figur e is for the ship ment of grai n only. And that means if that were to come into effect that way, the 1. 8 times next year is going to be much more than 1. 8 times as far as the grain shippers are concerned.

And there are many other references here that one could use; the other one havi ng to do with consulta tions, suggestions from Western Agricultural Associ ations concerning variable rates. Wha t kind of a sit ua tion does that open up? On ce you open that door, you're now looking at a further rail line ab andonment system and a greater transfer of responsibil ity to trucking concepts as opposed to rail concepts, transferring costs on to the provinces and to the pro ducers again. So, I don't know what other interpreta tion you can draw from that, Mr. Chairman, it is there for di scussion.

Now I'm hopeful that afte r the dis cus sion, there will be some yielding on the part of the Government of Canada on those issues, to protect the producers of grain in the prairies. Because if there isn't, well then the message is very cle ar, Mr. Chair man, they are going to saddle the grain producers of the prairies with a burden that they will not be able to sustain. I happen to bel ieve that this process may bear some fruit, Mr.

Chairman, and it may be that if enough people are knowle dgeable as to the options that are bei ng looked at, that there will be enough pressure built up in order to convi nce the Government of Can ada as to the direction that should be taken in the overall interest before the legislation is introduced in Parl iament in October. And that's the whole purposes of this exercise. If our suspicions and concerns are unwarranted, if the direction is going to be modified, we will still have served a good pu rpose, Mr.

Chair man, in drawing the information that is avai lable to the attention of as many people as possible. No harm will have been done by that process. On the other hand, having not done so, a lot of harm could be done and we would be negli gent in not bringing into the disc us sion the masses that are going to be effected by these changes. MR. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I move comm ittee rise. MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, just why are we ris ing at 10 o'clock when we are in the middle of a good di scussio n. I'm sure the Min ister doesn't want to quit tonight. Do you ever want to get through the Esti mates?

We ll, let's get at it. Why are we wasting time sitting home? Why don't you go home then and let us tal k with the Minis ter? We can't out-vote him tonight anyway. I'm sure the Min ister wants to get through these tonight. MR. CHAIRMAN: Comm ittee rise. MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, Sam do you want to rise right now? MR. USKIW: There is no debate on the motion, it doesn't matter to me. I can sit here until midn ight. MR. CHAIRMAN: Comm ittee rise SUPPLY - AGRICULTURE MR. CHAIRMAN, Jerry T. Storie (Flin Flon): The Comm ittee will come to order. Conti nuing on page 9, the Department of Agricu lture.

I would hope that the opening remarks have been made at this point and that we can continue with the item-by-item analy sis beginning with No. 1. (b)

(1) Sal aries. The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. ALBERT DRIEDGER (Emerson): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to take any excep tion to the remarks you made about the opening remarks or statements havi ng been made beca use I had n't even properly got warmed up. It was Private Member s' Hour and I want to sort of pick up from there and have a go at it. I'm sure that should be quite accept able. I'd mentioned before the Private Member s' Hour some concern about the lack of conc ern that the present ad ministration has towards ag riculture.

I also made some mention about the sort of windo w dress ing that the present Minister of Agriculture has toward agricultur e, and I was trying to sort of just justify some of these remarks when we were interrupted at that time with Private Members' Hour. I think everybody in this House pretty wel l acce pts 1145

Monday, 5 Apri l, 1982 the fact that our No. 1 industry in this pr ovi nce is agriculture, and then whe.n I look at the amount expende d under this categ ory here then I have some grave concerns - $4 2, 1 34,000 is plan ned to be expended this year, it was $39 million last year - and I have to be really concerned with the major in dustry we have in this provinc e that we do not have more initiative shown by this government especiall y when they were out in hustings and indica ting to the people all the various thi ngs that they were going to do for the agricultur e community and I' d lik e to make reference to a few of them.

One of them was, of course, the Beef Stabil ization Program or some kind of a beef program that was initiated during the election stages at that time, and I reali ze full wel l - the Min ister is sort of looking di s gusted and well he should beca use I real ize that we're going to be tal king about this at a later time in the Estima tes, understandably so - but we're tal king of plan ning and ad ministration and I want to talk about the plan ning aspect of it just for a li ttle bit beca use we've at various times in the House questioned the Min ister about who are the people he consu lted with before he brought his program down, and we've never really had a proper answer on that.

I took some time to consult with the people in sou theast Manitoba. We have organiza tions there like the Southeast Cattle Im provement Associa tion with much activity going out there and in the recent months. We have an assoc iation calle d the SP ADA Group out there that pretty wel l covers the whole southeast, and when we raised the question with the Mini ster about who has been consu lted before this program was initiated, we've never had a proper answer on it. These are things under Plan ning that we want to try and establish what happened. How did you come up with the program that has been announc ed?

We want to work on the details of the program la ter on, but I want to know how he initiated the thing, the planning of it. Who were the people that advised the Min ister of Agricu lture in terms of what he was doing when he came up with this program? I also had the opportunity of getting back to my people in the area of southeast Man itoba and it's a poor area to some degree. The people are struggling out there; the economic time s are tough.

Many of these people are beef raisers; they don't have much acreage and when we look at the proposed Beef Income Program that the Min ister has announced and he's trying to force some of these people to feed catt le through to finish, these guys have to go out and buy the grai n before they do that beca use they don't have that kind of cultiv ated acreage even. But what hap pened, and Mr. Min ister I'd lik e to draw your attention to the fact that after -y ou know, it's only been a li ttle while - but the initial reaction to your announcement of the program has been very, very negative.

The cow-ca lf producers in may area say, hey, have it. We don't want any part of it and you know why? There's a few reasons why, because it isn't that many years ago when the present ad ministration that was then in gov ernment at that time came up with a beef stabil iza tion program of some sorts. It took us years to sort that mess out where they tied people in for five years. Now, we did n't stop at five years; we go on with six years and these guys look at it and they don't even look at the details to any degree. They say, have it; we don't want any part of it.

When the Min ister's budg eting for $1 7.5 million or $20 milli on in whatever category, $50 per cow, these guys are leery, they're not even going to get invol ved in this kind of thing. And if you're talking of hel ping any people in the beef industry, it's going to be darn few, and pardon the expression , because they have no faith in the kind of program that you come up with. You're trying to lock them into a six -year program agai n. We know that three weeks from now, I would say within two weeks from now, the Federal Minis ter is indic at ing he's going to come up with an announcement.

There's no provision in here where anybo dy jumping into this program that has been announced that they can step into something else whatever the case may be. He's sitting there rubbing his hands. The previous Minister of Agricultur e as well as the present Min ister agree that it would be better to have a national program rather than a provincial program, but this Min ister along with his col leagues during the elec tion said, hey, we're going to come up with a new program. It's been a long time. You said you'd help the beef people; you promised an Interest Rel ief Program for farmers.

Wha t an emba rrassment it must be to the Minister. It must be, pardon the ex pression, one hell of an emba rrassment to him. I withdraw that expres sion, Mr. Chairman. He must be blushing in his seat when he talks of the kind of reli ef he's giving to any body, to the farm population in that respect, and we will be on top of that and che cking these things out. These are the things when we talk of the pla nning, the Minister of Agricultur e at the present time as I indic ated before, I think he giv es a lot of lip service to the people in the farm community, but he isn't going to do a darn thing for them.

They are al ready skeptical right now - lip service is what we get - and there is not going to be anything in there for the farmers at all. They're struggling, fighting and what I tel l my people, you'll have to struggle on your own because this Min ister and this government is not concerned about the people in the agricultur al community. 1146 The number one industry and what do we have? Nothing. We have all kinds of other departments that have got great increases. We have $3-milli on increase in the Depar tment of Agricultur e; $3 mil lion; percentage-wise, fracti onal, really fractional.

And that is using some of the fi gures in there for the pro gram that he is announcing; the big gest portion of it will not be spent. That is the agg ravation. The Min is ter of Agricultur e sort of tried to embarrass the pre vious Min ister of Agricu lture stating that in this Hog Stabil ization Program there weren't enough funds and this and tha t. Wel l, I'll tell you something, the program that you've announced you'll have funds there beca use nobody's going to enter into it. It's a misconcep tion, that's what it is, but the rural people know what's going on.

And ourselves as Op position and the farm com munity will come after this Min ister and we'll make you blush in your seat because what you've done, you'r e doing ba sically nothing. The areas where I could feel that this Minister should move on. We have a good program going in the southeast, for example, which is sort of a have-not type of area. The

Monday, 5 April, 1982 same thing appl ies along the peripheral area, when we look at the map, you know the margi nal lands, this type of thing. The previous Minister of Agricultur e came up with some good programs: selling of Crown lands which has al ready been stopped, was stopped im media tely; the sale of LGD vested lands which was a good program, which is in di ff icu lty; the Tree Land Program which he can not remove because that would caus e a riot in the country. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister on a point of order. MR.

URU SKI: The honourable member indic ated that in his remark something about LGD vested lands is in di ffi culty, can he elabor ate on that statement? Is he prepared to elabor ate on that statement he just made? MR. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, that I bel ieve comes under the Department of Municip al Affa irs and I'm just making reference to that to some degree, but basically what I was trying to ill ustrate is the programs that were in place, that were hel ping developme nt along the marginal lands, and we had a great program going.

In fact, we had a li ttle bronze statue of the Min ister of Agricultur e previously and we polishe d it every once in a while because the development that was taking pla ce. Every time it got tarnished the Min ister came out there and he met with the people and he was concerned about them and we'd polish it up again. I'll tell you some thing, there is no way that anyb ody's going to build a statue for the Minister of Agricultur e at this stage of the game. We had for example the Tree Land Program, it's been very instrumental.

I understand, and correct me so I hope, and mayb e the Minister in his remarks can confirm the fact that the brushing program, the Tree Land Program is going to be mai ntained and expanded o n possibly to include the Interlake, it's been very benefi cial. When I look at the Estima tes and sort of scan through them under Research for exam ple, and I know we have to go li ne-by -li ne, but I' m talking of the general things. We need more monies in that area. Do you know what we have? The same amount of money expended there, and that concerns me.

Tha t shows exact ly the concern that this ad ministration has towards ag riculture. If the Min ister is look ing at his Estimates there it says $850,000, Agricultural Research Grant and the same thing agai n this year. That shows their priority. Wha t they do they give lip service. This government of the da y does not care about agriculture. You're trying to mai ntain it but you're not prepared to promote the extension of this kind of No. 1 ind ustry. You want to do ManOil, spend all kinds of money there. You want to spend money all over the place, but you don't want to spend it in agricultur e.

We noticed the same thing when we dealt with the Department of Natural Resou rces in terms of drain age, etc., in the provi nce. These are all things related to agriculture in the rural com munity, this Minis ter does n't care. He gives us lip servic e but he doesn't care. He's trying to fudge the issues. This Minister, and I'd lik e to draw it to his attention, that within my constituency for exampl e, the Emerson constituency, we have approximately 40 small com munities. The big gest community is a very small community, possibly lik e St. Pier re, maybe lik e St.

Malo, maybe lik e Nivervi ll e, all related to agriculture. All these 40 communities are reliant on what happens in the Department of Agricultur e. Wha t happens to the agricultur al base, whether it is special ized under the area of supply management and broi lers, dairy production, grain production, beef production, it's all related to that, every busine ss in that whole southeast there is dependent on what happens with the agricul tural community. High interest rates have created a lot of problems. So prior to the elec tion this government came up and sai d, we will solv e that, we will solv e that.

They haven't solv ed a problem for one indi vidual in my area. If it is so, if the Min ister can prove me wrong I will get up pubicly and apolo gize that you probably solved the problem of one or two and I'm prepared to do that. It's been a, how should I say, a camoufla ge and this is wha t happens. This Min ister hasn't come up with one thing to date tha t looks positive for the agricultural com munity. -(I nterjection)- I lik e that. A member just asked what did we do?

Wel l, if that is the case, if this is an invita tion, I would lik e to explain what we did in terms of when we had the flo qd, when we had the drought, and wha t we did to the beef industry with a program that was strapped around the beef industry's neck? I can go to many things. Actually, I suppose, Mr. Chairman, you're giving me that look and maybe I shouldn' t get into that because that could take a lot of time. -(I nterjection)- leave? Did somebody say leave?

I'd just lik e to indic ate to the Min ister there is room for research especially when we have a Tree Line Program, why is there not an increase in some of this research because we need an improvement in many of these things. When we start developing some of the more marginal lands, we need programs and informa tion through the Ag Reps' system that will im prove some of these thi ngs, the kind of crops they can grow on these lands. Is there anything lik e that? None at all.

It's a mai ntenance budg et that we basically have from this Min ister and he gets up there, he waves his arms and I've seen him go li ke this. I'm doing all these things for everybody. It 's a great di sappointment especially in the southeast. I, personal ly, have to indi cate that there is no concern at all. Wha t bothers me is that, I think, prior to 19 77 when the present govern ment got defeated at that time, wha t defeated them was basic ally the fact and I want to substa ntiate this because - why does the rural area not support the NOP philo sophy or the present ad ministration, why?

Because they've shown in the past they don't care, not about the individ ual. They tal k about the fam ily farms; they haven't got a clue what it's all about. They tal k of buying lands; we will not borrow money through MACC to buy lands because agai n, they're initiating the program of, we cal l it state fa rm. You can call it what you lik e. Basically, it is government buying land indica ting who's going to be the landlo rd and tha t kind of philosophy is what has al ways created con sternation in the agricu ltural com munity and will agai n.

And you're emb arking on the same things that knocked you out la st time and will again and it won't take eight years this time. I can guarantee that. 1147

Monday, 5 April, 1982 During my Throne Speech addr ess, I made some reference to a cheap-food polic y and I'd lik e to just make reference to that agai n. When we consider that in this country of ours - I think it's the best country in the world - that we spend 18 percent of the earned dollar on food consumption and it's going down; when we consider that to the other countries where we have 30, 40 and in some extreme cases almo st 60 percent of the earned dollar spent for food; we spend 18 percent of it and the Min ister's sitting there and saying, things are tough but whatever, you know.

Until we're going to change the attitude of that Minis ter of the Ministers across the cou ntry we have to start promoting a dif ferent philosophy, in terms of how much are people going to spend for food? I am saying that the consu mers have to pay for their food. This is not a new thought. This has been promoted before in many other countries and it's effective in other coun tries. They're paying for the food. Here we don't belie ve in that. And this Min ister with $3 million increase in his bud get says, "hey, you know I'm doing great things for the farmers." You're not doing any thing for the farmers.

You're not even properly - how should I put this? - you're not even properly tolerat ing them. And they will come ba ck, and this Min ister is going to have a very di ffic ult ti me. Thi ngs are very tough right now economically in the farm co mmunity and he himself indi cated that. But I'll tel l you some thing, his sympathy is not going to be good enough, and I don't know what his position is when he gets into Cabi net because cer tainly he should have fought for more money in his department. Now, I've got some remarks off, you know that bothered me, I' ve got them off my shoul ders type of thing.

The thing that I would li ke to ask of the Min ister of Agricultur e. I' ve tried to ask this before: what is the Minister's position in terms of supply management in the beef industry? He has been hedg ing and fudg ing that thing and -you know his program where hewa nts to set up a marketing commission, a beef comm ission type of thing where everything goes through it, the concept, it's again Bill ie's big farm type of concept, you know.

These are things that we will pursue as we go item- by- item and I just want to get these things now and ind icate to the Min ister that these things we're going to come back on as we go li ne-by-lin e, this type of thing. To this date, he has not made any positive answers to anybody when a questions have been asked . We talk of open government, his Pr emier has indi cated open government, and this Minister has not given one proper direct ans wer unle ss he was squeezed into a corner and then finally it was yes or no.

That had to do with the Beef Program; that had to do with Supply Management, many other things and in all fai rness, because I think it is important that we deal with these issues, I would indic ate to the Minister it's going to be a long Estima tes unless the Min ister gets up there and says exactly where he stands and quits fudg ing the issues. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Memb er for Robli n-R ussel l. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE (R oblin-R ussell): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There's a few remarks that I' d lik e to add to the opening sector of the Minister's Esti mates and put in the record for the agricultur al indus try in our provin ce, our No. 1 industry. The Min ister in his opening remarks left me some what concerned in that he left me with the under standing that he wasn't sure how severe the economic problems and the other problems that our agricultur e is fac ing in the provi nce today, how severe they actu ally were.

I suppose in his own capacity with his political bac kground and certainly having a lot of knowledge of the turkey ind ustry, his lim itations end about there, Mr. Chairman, and I would think with the staff, all he has to do is very briefly go and di scuss some of the serious problems that we have in this province with his staff, who I'm sure are quite fa mili ar with it.

The ag reps they're dotted around this provi nce, are very fa mili ar with some of the very serious problems that we have - and I have on occa sion taken this, I guess you wouldn' t call it a Regina Manif est, maybe at the Honourable Min ister's constituency where they cooked up this great document tha t they used to brai nwash the people of this provinc e during the el ec tion cam paign - it raises some very serious ques tions with the staff that work for the Honourable Min ister.

The one I' ve been going around and tal king to, the various ag reps and staff in the department, is this one, unless decis ive action is taken now Manitoba's fa mily farms and the rural communities that service them are going to simp ly vanish. Mr. Chairman, if the Honourable Minister would jump in my car with me tomorrow I'll take him around and show him a lot of communities, unless he comes up with some more programs and more plan ning than we see in these Estima tes, that will simp ly va nish as it's spel led out in that manif esto.

It's a tragedy that the Min ister brings his Estima tes here before this House I daresay in my time - and I've been here 15 , 16 years in this Leg isla ture - I never saw the ag ricultural industry in this provinc e in a more critical condition than it is as we sit here tonight; very very serious and before very long a lot of things are going to be such that there is going to be no industry.

I raised it the other day, unless fi rst of all the inf la tionary factor is attacked not only by this provinc e but by the Federal Government, unless we can dam pen inflation there will be no more agriculture in this province, there is no room. Agricultur e can't afford the double digi t infla tion that is going on year after year after year when their commodi ty prices are remai ning the same or are lower year afte r year after year. You don't have to be a very brill iant politician to make that al lega tion.

I'm surprised that in this opening statement of this Min ister he said nothing basically about infla tion, and what he and his government is going to do to attack that dis ease that's plagueing this country. He never said a word and his Fi rst Min ister has never attacked that, nor has his Finance Minister attacked that prob lem and that makes me concerned then, Mr. Chair man, most concerned.

I daresay if the farm population around this prov ince were sitting in this forum tonight they would be most concerned to see this Minister la ying his spend ing program for the year ahead on this, and there is nothing there at all. In fact he hasn't even openly 1148

Monday, 5 April, 1982 committed himself that he is going to try and help Trudeau rastle inflation to the ground. Of course, Trudeau has never rastled to the ground because he's never tried. But I'm as king this Minister, I'm as king you tonight, you are the Min ister of this, what are you going to do to try and rastle inflation to the ground? Wha t polic ies have you got? Wha t plans have you got in your Esti mates with your government that's going to be posi tive and directly try and attack infla tion?

Because if you're not interested - and he was laughing a moment ago - then ball game over, bal l game over, Mr. Chairman, ball game over. MR. CHAIRMAN: Or der please. The Honourable Minister on a point of order. POI NT OF OR DER MR. URU SKI: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privile ge. The honourable memb er can make all the comments he wants but, Mr. Chairman, when he makes serious alle gations that someone is laughing about the plight of the farmer in Man itoba, that member should apol ogize and take those words back. We are very serious in what we are doing here, Mr. Chairman.

If the member is not serious than he had better not make those al lega tions, he should withdraw those alle ga tions, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Memb er for Robl in-Rus sel l. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, I would lik e you to to show me in the Rule Book where I can't make an al legation that somebody is laughing in this Chamb er, show me the Ru le. MR. URUSKI: The honourable member in his remarks insinua ted that I was laug hing at the pligh t of the farmers, Mr. Chairman, that's the very remarks he was making. Mr.

Chair man, the Estima tes that I have pres ented in all seriousness was meant to deal with the problems the farmers are fa cing. The honourable member is insin uating that some members on this side including myself are laug hing at the farmers in Manitoba. Mr. Chairman, I chal lenge him to withdraw that statement on the ba sis of the remarks that he has made. MR. CHAIRMAN: Or der please. We wouldn't want the debate to det eriorate into a shouting match.

I would just suggest that members on both side s be more thoughtful in their remarks and perhaps if we could conti nue from here on an item-b y-item analy sis, that might be possi ble. Or der ple ase. The rules ordi narily require that the member speak from his seat. The rules also allo w the Minister to move to a seat that will acc ommodate him and his officials therefore I would recognize the Hon ourable Min ister of Com muni ty Servi ces and Corrections. Order please. The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): On that same point of order, Mr.

Chairman, you've indi cated that it 1149 has been the proced ure to speak from the member's chair . Wo uld it not have been appropriate for the Min ister to have moved over so that the individual can speak from the chair at this particular time? However, Mr. Chairman, to acc ommodate the House we would allo w the member to make his comments from the . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Memb er for Robli n-R ussel l. MR. McKENZIE: On the same point of order, I warn you, Mr.

Chairman, if you're making a ruling that members can speak from any chair in this Cham ber, it will be a nightmare for the Page s in this pla ce. It's never been done in my years here, and I warn you to watch what you are doing, Sir. MR. URUSKI: To the same point of order, Mr. Chair man, the Honourable Memb er for Rob lin should remember that his Min ister had to move, members had to move from the second bench down in the Estima tes, and it so happens that the Esti mates pro cess, where the tabl e's been set up for the Estima tes has been not next to my chai r.

Other Min isters have moved and have used other chair s. I happen to be sitting in the Min ister's chair, Mr. Chairman, so he should be able to speak from that point. MR. McKENZIE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman, all I'm trying to do is be hel pful. It has never happened in my time here that members are allo wed to speak from other than their own chai r unless we use the Esti mates system and the Min ister is allo wed to come down to the front and bring his staff in. I forewarn you because, then on any giv en day any member can sit in any chair, and it would be very dif fi cul t for you, Mr.

Chairman, or especially the Pages to see people shuf fling all over and very diff icult to manage. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ju st before - on a point of order? The Memb er for El mwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN (El mwood): I mean becaus e of the fact that the Min ister happens to be occupying his col league's seat, I think it's only sensible that the other Min ister may be allo wed to speak from another seat. I mean tha t's just common sense, otherwise you're going to play musical chair s.

I also want to say to the la st speaker that there was a longstanding tradi tion in this House going back to day one that a member who was in the House for a vote was com pel led to vote. As I recall, he's the fi rst person who viola ted that tradition a couple of years ago. MR. CHAIRMAN: Or der please. I apprecia te the remarks from the Member for Roblin-R ussell and with that understanding I would ask leave for the Minister to speak from a dif ferent seat. Does he have leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Memb er for Com munity Services and Co rrections. HON. LEONARD EVANS (Brandon East): Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, I apprecia te the problem that you were presented with and it is for some reason or other all the Min isters on this side seem to enjoy my chai r.

Monday, 5 April, 1982 I rose strictly on a point of order to try to fac il itate the orderly and rational review of the Min ister's Esti mates. I wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman, that we're deal ing with an item cal led Plan ning and Ma nage ment, I bel ieve. The Honourable Memb er for Roblin was, in my view, wande ring far off the topic of Plan ning and Management. It seems to me that the kind of deba te we heard from the Memb er for Robl in was more appropriate under the Minis ter's Sal ary.

I gather we're not on the Min ister's Sal ary, so it seems to me that it is out of order to talk on far- ranging philo sophi cal matters. I would think that you would want to get onto the item under review, the very specific item under review. I think that's the orderly way of dealing with the Estimates of any department. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that point has alr eady been made. I would thank the Min ister for add ing to it. I would hope we could proceed from here on an item by- item basis.

The Min ister has indic ated that he!s willing to answer all questions as they come under the appropriate item and perhaps we could proceed with that understanding. On the same point of order, the Member for Emerson. MR. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, on that same point of order.

I wonder if someb ody could clar ify Plan ning and Management, which is under General Ad ministration if not anything that the Minis ter of Agric ulture does comes under Pla nning and Management; if th ere's a change here, that these things don't come under that kind of head ing, if someb ody could indic ate where we're at, that would be fine. MR. UR USKI: Mr. Chairman, if the honourable member wants to know; he raised questions about credit, MACC is Item No. 3; he raised questions about the Beef Income Assurance Program, Mr.

Chairman, that topic is Item No. 10 ; he raised questions about marketing and the lik e, of agricultur al products; he raised questions about the AgroMan Agreement; if the memb er looks through the Estima tes, all those items are lis ted in those areas that we can dis cuss very much in detail, the vari ous topics that he has covered, all those items that he's touched upon right now. Every area, I can ass ure him that he will have a chance to di scuss in depth, his AgroMan Agreement and those areas in the specifics of items that we will come to in the Estima tes. MR. ORI EDGER: Mr.

Chairman, on the same point of order, just to cl arif y thi ngs. I apprecia te the fact that we can go into detail on all these

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-27b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 27b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3104da4389975ba518f2e3c20d80eed819e74ef9

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