Manitoba Hansard — 12 May 1980 (Sitting 56A, 31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-56a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Fourth Session - Thirty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 29 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker VOL. XXVlll No. 56A - 2:00 p.m., MONDAY, 12 MAY, 1980 Printed by W. T.Matwichyna. 0U"'1s Print11<, PrOYince of Manitoba

MANITOB A LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY Thirty - First Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, A. R. (Pete) ANDERSON, Bob BANMAN, Hon. Robert (Bob) BARROW, Tom BLAKE, David BOSTROM, Harvey BOYCE, J. R. (Bud) BROWN, Arnold CHERNIACK, Q.C., Saul CORRIN, Brian COSENS, Hon. Keith A. COWAN, Jay CRAIK, Hon. Donald W. DESJARDINS, Laurent L. DOERN, Russell DOMINO, Len DOWNEY, Hon. Jim DRIEDGER, Albert EINARSON, Henry J. ENNS, Hon. Harry J. EVANS, Leonard S. FERGUSON, James R. FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GALBRAITH, Jim GOURLAY, Hon. Doug GRAHAM, Hon. Harry E.

GREEN, Q.C., Sidney HANUSCHAK, Ben HYDE, Lloyd G. JENKINS, William JOHNSTON, Hon. J. Frank JORGENSON, Hon. Warner H. KOVNATS, Abe LYON, Hon. Sterling R. MacMASTER,Hon.K en MALINOWSKI, Donald MCBRYDE, Ronald McGILL, Hon. Edward McGREGOR, Morris McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., Hon. Gerald W. J. MILLER, Saul A. MINAKER, Hon. George ORCHARD, Hon. Donald PARASIUK, Wilson PAWLEY, Q.C., Howard PRICE, Hon. Norma RANSOM, Hon. Brian SCHROEDER, Vic SHERMAN, Hon. L. R. (Bud) STEEN, Warren URUSKI, Billie USKIW, Samuel WALDING, D. James WESTBURY, June WILSON, Robert G. Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield La Verendrye Flin Flon Minnedosa Rupertsland Winnipeg Centre Rhineland St. Johns Wellington Gimli Churchill Riel St. Boniface Elmwood St. Matthews Arthur Emerson Rock Lake Lakeside Brandon East Gladstone River Heights Kildonan Dauphin Swan River Birtle-Russell lnkster Burrows Portage la Prairie Logan Sturgeon Creek Morris Radisson Charleswood Thompson Point Douglas The Pas Brandon West Virden Roblin Osborne Seven Oaks St. James Pembina Transcona Selkirk Assiniboia Souris-Killarney Rossmere Fort Garry Crescentwood St. George Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Fort Rouge Wolseley Party NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC Ind NOP PC NOP PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC NOP PC PC NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC PC NOP NOP NOP Lib PC

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 12 May, 1980 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birlle Russell): Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Pres enting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees . . Min isterial Statements and Tabling of Reports ... Notices of Motion . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. BRIAN RANSOM (Sou ris-Killarney) introduced Bill No. 50, The Manitoba-Saskatchewan Boundary Act (1 980). HON. GE RALD W.J. MERCIER (Osborne) introduced Bill No. 12, The Law Fees Act.

Loi sur les frais judiciaires; and Bill No. 26, The Suitors' Moneys Act.

Loi sur les sommes consignees en justice. (Recommended by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.) HON. ROBERT (Bob) BANMAN (La Verendrye) indroduced Bill No. 42,

An Act to amend The Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act. HON. WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris) introduced Bill No. 32,

An Act to amend The Real Estate Brokers Act. MR. LEONARD J. EVANS (Brandon East) introd uced Bill No. 15 ,

An Act to amend The Brandon Charter. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, I should like to draw the honourable members' attention to the gallery, where have 40 students of Grade 11 standing from Pri ncess Elizabeth School under the direction of Miss Gordon. This school is in Shilo, Manitoba, and is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Brandon East. We also have 22 students of Grade 12 standing from the Melita High School under the direction of Mr. Sinclair. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Mini ster of Agriculture.

On behalf of all the honour able members, we welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Honourable First Mi nister. Since I assume the First Minister will be undertaking enquir ies pertaining to reports of a chemical testing involving the city of Winnip eg by Uni ted States Government in 1953, will the First Minister keep us informed as to any results of enquiries that he will be making pertaining to whether or not same occurred or not. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON.

STERLING R. LYON (Charleswood): Yes, Mr. Sp eaker. The Min ister in charge of the Environment has already initiated enquir ies about the newspaper report which has appeared over the weekend. I'm sure that he will keep the House informed if there is anything new after that 27 -year period of time that emerges from his enquiry. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, my question is the Mi nister of Muni cipal Affairs.

In view of the report over the weekend of the action of a municipal secretary-treasurer in arranging for the subdivision of property on his part and being able to weave through the red tape in a manner superior to that which a resident in his municipality was able to do, would the Minister undertake to bring to estimates, while his department is under review, a complete and total report as to how it is that a secretary-treasurer is able to weave through the red tape and the processes in a manner that is superior to that which is available to the average resident within a municipality so that we can ascertain whether or not we, as legislators, can ensure that there is a better balancing as to the appro aches that can be undertaken by the average citizen and make sure that those approaches are available to the average citizen that appear to be available to muni cipal officials.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Muni cipal Affairs. HON. DOUG GOURLAY (Swan River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I'd be pleased to bring as much information as I can with respect to the

article that appeared over the weekend with respect to the A.M. of Cartier and have that available at the time of mun icipal estimates. MR. PAWLEY: At the same time, Mr.

Speaker, can I assume that the Minister will bring a complete report as to the Involvement of the Mun icipal Affairs department in the application in question, whether or not, regardless of the date by which the applications commenced and were completed and the particular involvement and deficiencies that were found from time to time and the response· to those deficiencies on the part of either the resident or the Secretary Treasurer over the past three or four years? MR. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I'd be pleased to do that. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Elmwood. MR.

RUSSELL DOERN: Mr Speaker, I'd like to dir ect a question to the First Minister concerning the reports about the 1953 chemical matter. I'd ask him whether he would undertake an exhaustive check of Cabinet and/or government files from this period in time, with a view to seeing whether there is any 3505

Monday, 12 May, 1980 information concerning this matter relayed to the Manitoba Government at that time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. MR. L VON: Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the Min ister in charge of the Environment will make such enquiries as he deems necessary to apprise himself of the proper information surrounding the alleged incident in 1953, on the basis of information which all of us have seen in the press, and that's the extent of it thus far.

We do not even know if there was for certain any spraying or release of material at that time, but I'm sure that the Mini ster will look to all documents customarily available to an administration to see what the records do disclose. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'd also ask the First Min ister whether he would request a comp lete report from the federal government concerning either conducted or considered chemic al or bio logic al experimentation in Manitoba since 1953, especially as to whether there's anything more current. MR. L VON: Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the incid ent which is engag ing the attention of the honourable member, I would imagine again that it would be natural for the Mini ster of the Environment to ma ke the general enquir y of his federal counterparts with respect to that in cid ent. My honourable friend is suggesting that he then go on a fishing expedition with respect to any other incidents of a similar nature. I don't know if that would be productive because I think what we should do is attempt to find out the validity, if any, of the reports respecting the alleged incident of 1953. MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for Elmwood with a final supplementary. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, then I dir ect my ques tion to the Mi nister respo nsible for the Environment, and I say in all seriousness that since the 1953 incident was totally unknown, there may - underline may - have been others; and I ask the Min ister whether he would ascertain whether there were any tests conducted in the past 30 years. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi nis ter responsible for the Environment. MR. JORGENSON: Mr.

Speaker, I have asked that investigations be made to determine, first of all, the validity of the reported incident in 1953. Having once determined that, then I will decide whether or not it is necessary to continue on to conduct a further enquiry. I might add that as the First Mini ster has indicated, I have consulted colleagues in Ottawa to determine whether or not they have any evidence there of such an incident taking place. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for lnkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like direct a question to the Mini ster of Municipal Affairs with regard to the resignations of councillors in the Local Government District of Alexander. Is the Min ister aware that his emp loyee, the resident admi nis trator, Ric hard Andries, and tha t his emp loyee, a Mr.

Abe Loeppky, were involved in trying to procure the resignation of councillor Vincent, and also that the resignation of councillors and Hunter and Fontaine, were in the hands of his resident admin istrator on March 14th, 1980; and that knowing tha t they had resi gned, he let them participate and take part as councillors in a meeting that was held on March 18th, 1980. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Municipal Affairs. MR. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the dates, it was some time after March 18th that this matter was brought to my attention.

The resignations were dated and signed as of March 18th, and in fact if they took place before that, it was not recorded on the resolutions. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't ask the Mini ster whether it was recorded on the resolutions. Did Mr. Andri es, his emp loyee, the employee of the Department of Muni cipa l Affairs, having two resignations by two councillors, namely Hunter and Fontaine, on March 14th, permit these people to participate in a meeting on March 18th, knowing that they had resigned, and did he and Mr. Loeppky participate by Mr. Andries actually attending at the home of Mr.

Vincent and trying to convince him to resign, and Mr. Loeppky waiting for the resignation to take it into Winnip eg, was there a participation of the part of two of his employees, namely Mr. Andries and Mr. Loeppky in procuring the resignation of a councillor in order to leave a municipal council under the jurisdiction of the Min ister without a quorum, specifically for that purpose. Is the Min ister aware of this? MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, the councillor in question, Mr.

Vincent, as was stated earlier, visited my office with the Reeve and Deputy Reeve, and at the time I had my Deputy Min ister in attendance, and he in fact had questioned Mr. Vincent as to the fact whether or not he had been talked into signing the resignation and he did not comment on this. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Min ister's answer and in view of the fact that Mr. Vincent claims that not only he commented of it but advised the Mi nister himself of all the facts that I have now questioned him on, I would like to table in the House, a letter from Mr. Vincent, dated April 29th, 1980, Mr. Speaker.

I table it in order to give the Min ister himself an opportunity to review its contents and, if necessary to himself, make a motion that this matter be referred to the Commit tee on Privileges and Elections. And I advise the Min ister that if he does not see fit to make such a motion I myself will consider the making of such, because the allegations in the letter are comp letely contrary to the Min ister's advice. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Transcona. MR. PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the First Mini ster. In view of 3506

Monday, 12 May, 1980 the fact that parliamen t on Frida y unani nously passed a resolution calling for the patriation of The BNA Act fro m Gr eat Britain, has the Min ister contacted the Prime Min ister to indic ate tha t Manitoba would be against such patriation unless an attempt was made to gain a provincial approval? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. MR. LYON: Mr. Sp eaker, the answer to the question is no. I can say to the honourable member that I did have an informal discussion with the Min ister of Energy, Mines and Resources on Friday afternoon and he was unaware, (

a) of the wording of the resolution, or (

b) of its passing. I saw then in the Saturday paper that the resolution introduced by Mr. Yurko had received the unexpected, shall we say, support of the House of Commons.

The position of the government of Mani toba remains the same and it's the position of most of the other provinces, not all - I think Ontario was the notable exception - that it would be wrong in principle to patriate The British North America Act, even though everyone favours patriation, it would be wrong to patriate it without having some prior arrangement for the amendment of that Act because the mere act of patriation by itself, without an amending formula, could lead to a total inflexibility with respect to amending procedures for the Act. I don't think it's necessary, Mr.

Speaker, for me to commun icate that piece of axiomatic logic to the Prime Mini ster. I'm sure he's well aware of it. Furthermore, it would be equally wrong - and he's well aware of this from the statements that various of the Premiers have made including myself - would be equally wrong for the government of Canada to patriate the Constitution or to attempt to patriate The British North America Act witho ut prior consultation with the provinces.

If the newspaper comments can be treated as being factual, one would draw from them that the Prime Min ister noted the passage of the resolution in the House, but ind icated that he would wish to consult with the provinces. That, of course, would be entirely fit and proper in the circumstances. MR. PARASIUK: Yes. A supplementary to the Mi nister. In vew of the fact that Mr.

Yurko, the Conservative Member of Parliament from Alberta, who introd uced the resolution has indicated publicly that he would be in favour of patria ting the Constitution even if there wasn 't provincial agreement, I'm wondering in the light of the euphoria that might exist in parliament as a result of, I think, some grandstanding prior to the Quebec referendum, that I would hate that euphoria to get the better of their senses - as it seems to have Mr.

Yurko's - and would the First Min ister not take the precaution of contacting the First Min ister to inform them again of their position before any precipitous actions are taken by the Prime Min ister in this regard. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the honourable member' s concern and his in terest in the topic because it is a serious topic.

I can assure him that we will take any action that is required to reinf orce the, I think, long-standing position of the government of Manitoba with respect to patriation not only of this adminis tration but previous adminis trations with which I was familiar - can I put it that way.

I will leave the immediately previous adminis tration to be spoken for by one of their spokesman - but it is a common position that has been taken by most of the provinces and if we were to see, to use the honourable member's terms, a kind of infectious euphoria overtaking the House of Commons, then of course we would make sure the well-known position of this admin istration and other admin istrations was reinforced by a telex or a letter or some appropriate means. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Transcona with a final supp lementary. MR.

PARASIUK: To the same Min ister, I would ask if he would consider introducing a motion which would allow for debate on constitutional change after the Quebec referendum so that we can discuss this vital matter in the Legislature of Manitoba since it has been dis cussed in other Legislatures, and if he would also consider establishing an all-party committee of the Legislature to look into this matter and to continue on beyond the life of this particular Session, to continue on looking at the matter of constitutional change and I do so reminding the Mi nister that the Fathers of Confederation met in a pretty non-partisan sense - John A.

Macdonald and George Brown were members of the delegation that in fact lead to the establishment of The BNA Act in the first place. So I would ask the Min ister if he would provide for a debate in the Legislature on this matter and establish an all-party committee of the Legislature to pursue this matter. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member will peruse Hansard, I believe of last week, I can't be specific as to the day, he will see that his wishes in that respect have been met with respect to the response I made last week.

There will be an all party comm ittee, in due cour se, when it is approp riate, to deal with the constitutional amendments and that has been, again, a long standing commitment by the present adminis tration. I should remind my honourable friend, of course, that there were many other outstanding features of the Fathers of Confederation Meetings. Only one of the features was the fact they tended to be non partisan.

There were many other features that I think might well be consi dered by the present adminis tration in Ottawa and by the provincial Premiers, namely, they got together in the final stages of the negotiation on a suitable ship, as I recall, and plied their way down to Prince Edward Island. On the boat they took along their wives, their companions, I believe there was a dance orchestra and the boat, if you can believe history, Mr. Speaker, was well supplied with food, vittles and other potions that were intended to facilitate the negotiations which were of supreme importance to the country.

I'm sure that Sir John A. would have made sure that the latter item was well stocked on the ship. Things of that nature, I think, should be brought to the attention of the people of Canada at this time to indicate there might be some value in repeating that trip down the St. Lawrence by the Prime Min ister 3507

Monday, 12 May, 1980 and the Premiers of Canada at the appr opria te moment and making sure that we do arrive at a concensus federally and provincially with respect to a renewed Constitution for Canada when the provinces have reached the point where they have agreed that is in the national interest as we, of course, believe it is. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I direct this question to the Chairman of the Provincial Land Use Commi ttee and ask him whether or not he was involved at all in the decision-making that led up to the allowing of a subdivision of agricultural, prime agricultural, land to be passed for the sale that took place in the outlying munici palities? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Transporta tion. HON. DONALD ORCHARD (Pembina): Could the Member for St. George be a little more specific, please? MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, if ·the Min ister hasn't read the allegations that were made in the paper with respect to agricultural land being sold for a large subdivision in the outlying RM, just to the west of Winnipeg, I'll provide him with the details from the paper. I would want to know whether or not the Provincial Land Use Guidelines were in any way violated by the approval of this subdivision? MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure which subdivision the Member for St. George is referring to. If he could provide a little more detail I could provide him with an answer possibly. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I'll provide the Min ister with the information, since it appears that he didn't want to read the press statements. I'd like to direct a question to the Mini ster of Agriculture and ask him whether he is prepared to strengthen the legislation dealing with farmland ownership in the province of Manitoba along the lines of Saskatchewn which outlaws non-agricultu ral corpor ati ons own ing farmland in that province. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Agriculture. HON. JIM DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, that present legislation is under review at this particular time. MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Wellington. MR. BRIAN CORRIN: My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Honourable First Min ister and I'd like to know, in view of the revelations respecting the plan, at least the plan of the United States government or the Armed Forces of the United States, to disperse possibily toxic chemicals over our city; and the demonstrated effectiveness of the U.S. Freedom of Information Laws in bringing that to light, whether this information has altered the First Mi nister' s perception of the concept of freedom of information and whether, in this regard, Mr.

Speaker, he will undertake to this House to move expeditiously to bring forward such legislation in our province. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware that either I, or the government, have made precise statements about freedom of information legislation.

All I can in this regard is this, that there are various forms in which such legislation can take and I would certainly not regard, and I don't mean this to be a gratuitous insult to our friends in the United States, but I would certainly not regard the American legislation as being a model that any free nation should follow because it does permit those elements within American society, who are subversive to the good government of the United States, to obtain information that should not be in their hands.

So I would certainly not regard the American legislation as any model that would ever be followed by this government. MR. CORRIN: I do not, Mr. Speaker, share the Honourable First Min ister's concern about access laws as they now exist in the United States. That's one of the risks of a democratic system but, Mr.

Speaker, my question then is, in view of the fact that there is an expressed dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in the United States, will the Honourable First Min ister un dertake to convene the all-pa rty commit tee that this Hous e endor sed last spring session in order to complete the work relative to the approved resolution that was accepted by this Assembly in 1979 and look into the entire concept of freedom of information and the concept to be embodied in such legislation if brought before this House. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I'd be quite happy to pursue that resolution with the House Leader to review it again to see what the sense of the House was when it was passed. But I want to make it crystal clear, Mr. Speaker, that my honourable friend should not be in any way under the expectation that this government, and I would dearly hope that any other government in Canada or, indeed, the national government of this country, would ever permit, under the guis e of so-called freedom of in forma tion, subversive elements in the country to become seized of information which is contrary to the security of the nation. I am not, Mr.

Speaker, in any way referring to the alleged inci dent that perhaps triggered my honourable friend 's qu est ion ab out 19 53 or whatever; I am referring to the general terms of his question wherein he suggested that it would be suitable to have that kind of legislation. Freedom of information legislation, properly couched so as to pro tect the national interests of a country is extremely impo rtant and well worth considering.

Freedom of information legislation such as the United States has at the present time, I suggest with the greatest of respect, in not in the national interest of that country and should not be followed in Canada. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. 3508

Monday, 12 May, 1980 MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the remarks of the First Minister to the question posed by the Member for Wellington. Would the First Minister not concur that in fact the United States Freedom of Information legislation excludes the release of any information tha t end angers the security of the state. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to get into the situation of debating

section by

section the American legislation. All I'm aware of from what I have read and heard of the American legislation is this, that it has put agencies of the United States Government, such as the FBI, the CIA and other agencies responsible for protecting and securing the government of the United States against subversive elements, their job has been made much more difficult. In fact, the information has come out into the hands of subversives that is not in the national interest.

I make that as a general observation and I suggest to my honourable friend that if he is as concerned, as I'm sure he is, about the security of this country, as I think any elected person should be, that we should be very very careful to ensure that any freedom of information legislation enacted in Canada is not done in a way which will subvert the work that is carried on, on behalf of all Canadian citizens, to protect them against those interests who are always present, Mr. Speaker, who are always present trying to undermine the kind and the form of government that we have in this country. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the answers by the First Minister interest us all. I'm wondering if the First Minister is then suggesting that the reason that he is not proceeding by way of imp lementation of the resolution which was passed in this Chamber in 1978 is that he fears that by the implementation of that resolution establishing a committee of this Chamber to deal with freedom of information . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. May I suggest the honourable member is debating rather than seeking information. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, on your point of order, it would be interesting if you would read Hansard at your first opportunity to read the comments by the First Minister and then ascertain really who is debating this point. My question to the First Minister was very specific. Is this the reason that he is not proceeding with the implementation of the resolution which was passed by this House in 1978? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, as with any questions asked by my honourable friend, it is a non sequitur; his question, but I said with respect to the question put by his colleague was in a general sense that we would not, or no administration would be wise to emulate the legislation passed in the United States of America. I answered the second part of his question by saying that we would consult with the Leader of the House to see what the status of that resolution was, so that question has already been answered. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Kildonan. MR. PETER FOX: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. In view of the fact that he has a resolution on the Order Paper which I understand he would like to have expedited and with which we are prepared to co-operate, would he extend the cour tesy of having some of his department officials meet with some of our people so we could get at the very technical details as an explanation to expediting this matter. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Mines. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Yes, Mr. Speaker, that can certainly be arranged.

I'd also mention to the House Leader that there will be a bill in the Legislature that covers this matter in the event of a July 1 requirement for it, so at that time there will be detail provided. Presently the resolution before us is to fulfill the undertaking from last year to make this move, if, as and when, there was an indexing of the well-head price, so that's why it's about at this time. But yes, we can make that arrangement for the members of the House who wish to talk directly and I'll try to do that this afternoon if it's convenient for the members. MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to address a question to the Mi nister of Economic Development respecting his indus trial strategy outline which he delivered in Winnipeg last April 30th, wherein he refers to man ufacturing indus tries in Manitoba including key growth sectors such as - he mentions three or four - but such as leisure products, and my question is: is his department still promoting the expansion of leisure products in Manitoba and specifically recreational vehicles and specifically motor homes and truck campers. MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Economic Development. HON. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, I would think that the promotion of expansion and the encouragement of people to travel and travel out of the province and through the province in leisure products ma nufactured in Manitoba would help the indus try in Manitoba. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Honourable Minister, who has been away for a few days, isn't aware of the fact that Edson Manuf acturing Division at Rivers, Manitoba has announced a major layoff of people and a shutdown of the factory facilities there.

In view of the problem in this very major facility, is the Mi nister not concerned tha t promo tion of additional plants throughout the province may make it even more difficult for this particular plant to open. And second ly, Mr. Spe aker, I wonder if the Ho nourable Mi nister is prepared to util ize his dep artment to specifically help this parti cular company at Rivers, Manitoba. Is there anything he can do to help this conpany get back on its feet, 3509

Monday, 12 May, 1980 apart from promoting other new industries that may only make matters worse at Rivers? MR. JOHNSTON: I am completely confused as to why new indus tries with more people working would be of harm to a person making leisure products. I would think that if there are mo re ind ustries operating in the province of Manitoba and more people working as has been in the province of Manitoba, that it would be better for the leisure indus try in all aspects.

I can only say that in helping the industry in Rivers, Manitoba, it was brought to our attention nearly three weeks ago that they had a very large inventory on hand and they would be ceasing to manufacture more until that inventory is moved. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the travel Manitoba or by Manitobans is part of a promotion that would help; our promotions that will be going on with wholesalers in Europe to bring people from Europe, rent a camper and travel through Manitoba and across western Canada will help. We would certainly try to do everything possible to encourage and help this industry.

Marr's is a fairly large industry in the province of Manitoba and their owners have informed us that as soon as the inventory gets to a situation that they can manufacture again with the present interest rates, they will be doing so. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for Brandon East with a final supplementary. MR. EVANS: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the Mi nister is unable to do anything specific for this unfortunate company at Rivers.

I would like to ask the Honouable Mini ster another question and that relates to a market survey that the governent has commi ssioned regarding the possibility of helicoptor manufacturing at Gimli, Manitoba. I wonder if the Honourable Mi nister has yet received a copy of this market survey and if so, whether he is prepared to table the same in the House. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the report wasn't just a market survey that was requested. It was a survey on the basis of whether the product is a feasible product and has a marketability.

When we say feasible product, will it do the things that it was shown as far as the presentation to the Manitoba Government and the federal government. The federal government has participated in the financing of the report that we will be receiving. We have had commun ication from them that the draft was ready for their approval and the final report will be coming through. We also have had communic ation that there has been an extension to the report using one engine versus another engine in the aircraft.

But I make it very clear to the member, that the province of Manitoba will be making no decisions on the helicopter business in the province of Manitoba until the report has been exami ned by the federal government as to the feasibility and marketability of the machine, and when that happens the company will have to make a proposal to the province of Manitoba as their financial status, and until that time there will be nothing done. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. D. JAMES WALDING: Mr. Spea ker, my question is to the Honourable Min ister of Finance.

Given that the government has accepted a recent Supreme Court ruling, I would like to know whether it's the policy of the Min ister and his department to send out bilingual tax information leaflets. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I don't think it would qualify as a House document. I presume the member is referring to the stuffers that are included with tax bills. MR. WALDING: In explanation, Mr.

Speaker, that's what I was referring to and I'd like to know from the Mini ster whether he is intending to send these out in bilingual form and if not, why he is sending out unilingual tax information pamphlets. MR. CRAIK: No, Mr. Speaker, it's not the government's intention to send out the forms in French as well as English. MR. WALDING: A supp lementary, Mr. Speaker.

If the Min ister says that it is not the intention of the department to send them out in French as well as English, I will show him one that I received today as a unilin gual form and I'd like to ask him what instructions were given to the city of Winnip eg in regard to the di st ri bution of these uni lingual pamphlets? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I presume the usual, to include them with the mailings of the tax bills which I presume now have been dis tri buted city- wid e including all those areas of the city, whether there would be a need or a necessity for another language or not. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital with a final supplementary. MR. WALDING: A final supplementary then, Mr. Speaker, and that is to ask the Min ister whether he had instructed the city, or what instructions he had given to the city in sending out these pamphlets to ensure that they were received by people who could understand them. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, the city got the same instructions that they received for the last eight years when they included these pamphlets with the tax bills. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. SAMUEL USKIW: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the First Min ister whether he can indicate as to how many boat peopl e have settled in Manitoba, out of the total imm igration to Canada? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I do not, of course, have that information at my fi ngertips. I'll take the 3510

Monday, 12 May, 1980 question as notice. Perhaps the answer can be given by the Min ister of Labour and Manpower. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: At this time I should like to draw the honourable members' attention to the gallery on my right where we have 56 students of Grade 6 standing, plus some guests from Quebec, from the Precious Blood School in St. Boniface, under the direction of Ms. June Lenoreville. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for St. Boniface. On behalf of all the honourable members, we welcome you here this afternoon. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, would you call the Adjourned Debate on the proposed motion of the Min ister of Finance. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Could we have this matter stand, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Min ister of Government Services, tha t Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a commi ttee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

MOTION presen ted and carried and the House resolved itself into a Comm ittee of Supply with the Honourable Member for Radisson in the Chair for the Department of Commu nit y Services and Corrections and the Member for Virden in the Chair for the Department of Agriculture. CONCURRENT COM MITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - AGRICULTURE MR. CHAIRMAN, Morris McGregor (Virden): I call the comm ittee to order. We are on Resolution 6, 1.(e)(1)- pass - the Member for Ste. Rose. MR. (Pete) A. R.

ADAM: When we broke off Friday at 12:30 for the weekend, I was asking the Min ister whether he would be prepared to . . . we were di scussing the ramif icati ons of contract hog production and I was asking the Min ister if he would be prepared to get in touch with Cargills and advise them that the government disappr oved of contract production of hogs.

The Mini ster stated to the comm ittee that he was op posed to contract production of hogs and I'm wondering, rather than pay lip service to the family farm, would he not be willing to get in touch with Cargill and advise them to that effect, that the government's position is that they do not approve of contract farming of hogs. Since the Min ister did say that he was in support of the family farm and oppo sed to contract production of hogs I am wondering if he would not commit himself to do that. I believe, Mr.

Chairman, that Cargills would back off if the Min ister was sincere in what he commented to us last week. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Min ister. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, number one in this specific item of policy studies, I don't believe that would cover it. On num ber two, I answered that question on Friday for the Member for Ste. Rose. I'm sure that if he looks back at the Hansards that will indicate that to him. MR.

ADAM: Yes, I know the Min ister, when we were on this specific item and the Min ister indicated that he was strongly in support of the family farm unit and that he felt that the fact that Cargills was going into contract production of hogs was not in the best interests of . . . and he was opposed to that kind of a situation and I'm just wondering would he not stop giving lip service to the support of family farms and do something about it, get in touch with Cargills and advise them that he doesn't approve of the hog production in Ma nitoba going in that direction. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, as I ind icated earlier, I answered that question on Friday and I don't believe that falls within the research part of our department. MR. ADAM: On that point, Mr. Chairman, we were on this specific item and that's where the question was asked. I was the last speaker to speak and we were on this particular item and the Min ister made a statement, a clear statement that he did not approve of contract farming of hogs, and all I'm asking the Min ister to do now is to get in touch with Cargill and advise them as to his opinion and see if he will not get some reaction from them in this regard.

I can't see why we can't speak about this because we were speaking on it when we broke off Friday and I was the last speaker on the list; I was still speaking when the Chairman called the committee to rise. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the Chair, I think, would indicate that this particular matter could be dealt under this particular item, I really believe it can I said. The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

We were dealing with the inv olvement the Department of Agriculture had in research over the last year, and one of the studies that the Min ister indicated the department was involved in was the hog study by Professor Gilson at the University. The Min ister read out a number of the recommendations and told us that he would be providing us with copies of the report and when we broke off we left, on Friday afternoon, right at the point where the Mem ber for Ste. Rose has begun, in terms of corpor ate involvement specifically in the hog industry in the province of Manitoba. 3511

Monday, 12 May, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Min ister. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, that was not dealt with in the Gilson Study. The point that I made when the commi ttee was discussing this the other day, and I will make it very plain, that I believe that the production of agricultur e commodities should be produced by farmers; the most desirous type operation is the family farm unit. But I do not believe that large corporations should be in the actual production of hogss.

I said, in specific, that as long as the Manitoba Hog Producers Marketing Board had control of the finished product that I could see no danger in what was taking place; I did not see any need for large companies to be in the actual production and do not support them being in the actual production. Now, if they offer a service to the farm community that the farmers accept or reject, I leave that up to the farmers to make that decision. But, at this particular time, I don't see where it is endangering the actual family farm concept.

They are provi din g a service the same as banks provide mone y; the feed companie s provide feed; this company is providing a service. Now, as far as legislating them out of the province, I don't intend to do so and I made it plain to the Member for Ste. Rose on Friday, that I did not support the concept of large corporations in the actual production of farm commodities. I've met with the different producers, the Producer Board, on this issue and they have let their thoughts be known to me.

I have indicated it publicly, in comm ittee and other places, what I think about it but as far as saying, no, you can't produce hogs - I shouldn't say, no, you can't produce hogs they're not actually producing hogs, they're providing a service to the producers. And if they in any way endanger, what I would consider endanger the production base that we have in this province, then other actions would be taken. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, the Min ister suggests that he would intercede if they were to endanger the sort of traditional production system as I interpret him. In his mind, what kind of situation would it be where, in his opinion, it would endanger the sort of traditional mode of production in Manitoba. What does he envisage as a reason that he would want to intercede? He has indicated that if there became a danger he would then step in but he doesn't spell out what he means by that. MR. DOWNEY: To be specific, Mr.

Chairman, if the marketing board structure were being circumvented on a direct basis, on a contract basis, then I would suggest that would be one of the ways in which they would be interfering with what the normal pattern of hog marketing and hog production is in the province. What I'm indicating is that it's not unlike Manitoba Pool Elevators program that was introduced several years ago on the SPF hog, Specific Passage and Free Hog, that they were providing breeding stock to the hog producers.

As I say I leave it to the farmers at this particular time to - if they're not using it as a program or if they're using it in any way to circumvent the marketing system that we have, then I would think action would have to be taken; I would be prepared to take action. But it appears to me the producers are using it as a service to them; then I would think that if in fact they were to endanger the position of the farmers then I would have to take some form of action. At this time I haven't got enough information to suggest that it's eroding the farmers who are producing hogs. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I wonder if the Min ister would ind icate to us whether or not the Ho g Producers Marketing Board has expressed support for the kind of production that is being promoted by Cargill and by contract producers. The board, are they neutral on that question, are they in favour of it or are they opp osed to it? What is the attitude of the board, the board which is elected by the producers of Manitoba? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the ind ications coming from the board is that they are not in supp ort of the kind of program that is being offered to the hog farmers. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, as I recall, we had a regulation - it may still be there although it may not be there, it can be checked, I am sure - that where a person or a company wishes to produce beyond 5,000 hogs a year that they would have to get appr oval from the board for tha t volume of production. Is that still in effect or has that been repealed? MR. DOWNEY: That hasn't been changed, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: (1)(e) - the Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I would tend to think tha t policy studies is a broad-ra ngin g area of discussion in the sense that either we can discuss the policy studies that have been undertaken or we can discuss those that should be undertaken and are not being unde rtaken. I notice that the amount of money allocated for policy studies is 107, 100, the same figure as last year, and I would almost hazard a guess the same figure it was three or four years ago, maybe six or seven years ago. That figure seems to ring a bell with me. I'm wondering what it is, Mr.

Chairman, is there no need for greater policy studies on the part of the department. It seems to me that there is a whole host of areas that ought to be looked at and, in particular, at this time in our histor y because of the imm inent change s in transportation costs for the grain industry as a result of new federal policies evolving with respect to Crow rate, the comp ensatory rate or whatever, is going to evolve out of those negotiations.

Secondly, it seems to me that this is a reasonable area where the Mini ster could determine for his satisfaction just what his feelings are, what the cost benefits are of the present feed grain policy. I make mention of tha t because the Saskatchewan government has used its policy study funds to come up with a report on the impact of the current feed grain marketing policy in Canada on grain producers 3512

Monday, 12 May, 1980 in the three prame provinces. In their report they indicate to us that Manitoba farmers lost about 30 million because of the present policy - Manitoba grain farmers. I'm wondering whether this Mini ster is in a position to either confirm that or whether he has even bothered to do any studies or research into the question of how the present grain marketing system is benefiting the Manitoba agriculture or how it may be a negative factor in terms of incomes to Manitoba grain producers.

It seems odd that we ought to have to think in terms of going to Saskatchewan for that kind of information which is a document that they have provided which is very comprehensive covering the three western provinces, the three prairie provinces, Mr. Chairman. It's a devastating report in the sense of its feelings toward the present feed grain marketing system.

It certainly has some very strong recommendations and it seems to me that the Mi nister, having had funds voted for policy study, should be able to tell us whether or not he has some views as to whether the marketing system that we have had now in grains for the last four or five years is, in fact, the kind of system he would advocate and would want to continue with or whether he would want to modif y it in order to improve the income position of our grain producers in Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Min ister. MR.

DOWNEY: Well, to address the comments that the member made to start with, this was discussed to some extent on Friday and I would indicate now to him, Mr. Chairman, that the 107,000 looks familiar to him. We could look back at the past work that has been done while he was the Mi nister and carried forward. I guess it probably demonstrates our ability to operate efficiently and still see that the necessary work is being done. When it gets to the area of dis cussing grain policies or feed grain policies, transportation policies, we have been fairly involved as a government.

I guess, 'when it comes to talking about what has happened under our administration, that we saw not only some studies take place but we have seen a lot of action. Mr. Chairman, the Member for Lac du Bonnet quite innocently sits there and suggests that there is room for more study. I think that when we took office the whole system had been studie d to death and the farmers were being somewhat coming up on the short end of the stick, not being able to market, transport their grain and move it to identified markets; markets that were identified by the Canadian Wheat Board.

They called for action and got it right in this very room, Mr. Chairman, with the Premier of the province calling a national meeting with all the participants in the grain transportation ind ustry and the Canadian Wheat Boa rd, sitting right in this room with western premiers, the federal Min ister responsible . . . - (Interjection)- Well, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Ste. Rose suggests, how much have they moved? Well, Mr.

Chairman, I'll tell you, there was a lot of movement and a lot of things have taken place; the commitment to build the Prince Ru pert terminal; the commitment to use Churchill to the fullest extent, which you never hear the Member for Ste. Rose mention, he's always talking about Crow rate and certain other things but he never gets down and deals with the real issues that affect Ma nitoba farmers. Mr. Chairman, we saw action.

We saw the federal government commit themselves to further pur chase of hopp er cars and rehabil itation of boxcars; the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta getting involved in the purchasing of hopper cars; and the province of Manitoba leasing some 400 hopp er cars now in the syste m. Act ion, Mr. Chairman, is what has taken place, not a continu ation of stud ies and studie s and mor e studies. We have, at the same time, been carrying out some work and we've had a study done by the University of Manitoba under Dr. Ed Tyrchniewicz, which I haven't had an opportunity to go over thoroughly with Dr.

Tyrchniewicz, and when I have gone over it then I'd be prepared to air it in the public arena but at this particular time I haven't had an opportunity to thoroughly discuss. I think in the best interest, I think in the grain transportation or the effects of increasing the transportation costs on grain movement out of Manitoba, the effects that it would have. One of the particular parts of that study that was not addressed and has to be, is what are the other side benefits to doing more of the value added work on crops produced in Manitoba? As I say, after I have had an opportunity to discuss with Dr.

Tyrchniewicz, which I think would be fair, then it will be released to be discussed in the public arena. Now, to look at future studies, the mem ber recommends what we should do as far as further studies, And again, I go back and somewhat think the farm community gets somewhat frustrated that there are too many studies being carried out and not enough action, although when action is taken the people who are involved in that kind of work have to know that there has been some background work done.

I believe that there has to be some more work done on liv estock stabilization programs and we're pursuing that at this particular time. I believe we have to, as the member suggests, a National Feed Grain policy. I would agree that there could be some discussion take place on that; as far as a major study is concerned I really don't know whether that would be in the interests, I think it's been done, as the mem ber says, tha t the Saskatchewan government have done it. -(I nterjection)- Well, the Member for St. George says we need some action.

I think when we get into this whole area as far as I am concerned, when we talk about grains that are produced in Manitoba, I believe there has to be a mechanism put in place where provincial governments have more involvement and more input into the total grain industry. The members sit here and suggest that we should be saying certain things; I believe we should be more involved when it comes to the operations of the Canadian Grain Industry.

There have been some proposals over the past few years on how that could take place, such as was recommended by the government of Alberta, to set up a Board of Governors to be participants in the Canadian Wheat Board or to be part of the overall governing body. I don't believe that is particularly necessary, but I do believe that the provinces should have an opportunity when it comes to being involved in grain industry decisions - after all there are only certain grains that are under the authority of the 3513

Monday, 12 May, 1980 federal government - and to have a meaningful input into the whole grains industry. I believe it has to take place through provincial governments. For example, in Australia - and I think it should be noted - that in Australia for example, the Australian Wheat Board have got representation from the five states; from the federal government who appoints the Chairman and thr ee other individuals; two from each of the five states elected from the farmers' organizations, as comm issioners. They have dir ect state involvement or provincial involvement which we really don't have in this country.

I feel if you're going to have a meaningful working relationship with the federal government and supporting the farm industry, that you have to have a more direct involvement. I believe that the most objective way to get on with providing opportunities with farmers, or for farmers, is to have governments, the industry and the farm community working in a common arena that their thoughts, their suggestions can be aired openly and discussed on an ongoing basis. I think we have to again say that I believe there's room for a study to be done in that particular area.

We talk of the need for in creased marketing opp ortu nities for our livestock and our other agricultural commodities that are produced in this province. I believe that an agricultural market development institute, made up of government and industry, could be an objective way to proceed to introduce and encourage our agricult ural commoditi es in to the in ternati ona l marketplace and I believe there has to be a lot more work done in this particular area.

I believe that we talk about the overall moneys that are ava ilable and allocated to this particular allocation of 107,000, I think it's a matter of leaving some room for the government to enter into specific projects at some time during the year. At this particular time it has been sufficient.

If other areas have to be looked at, I'm sure the members are quite aware of the fact that we have other people involved , particu larly in the Department of Management and Economics branch to provide some background information that isn't a matter of going out and getting an outside consultant to come in assembling information or statistics. There is a lot of that particular knowledge already available.

I really think in requesting these funds that we are dealing with the specific issues and I say the one that is number one at this particular time as far as we're concerned is the development of a more suitable type approach to stabilization and if moneys have to be spent in that area, they will be. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, the Min ister skated all over the place but didn't deal with the question and the question is, isn't it prudent for him to have his department do a monitoring job on federal policy with respect to feed grain marketing or any other federal policy which has an impact of the welfare of prairie producers? And certainly tha t has a sign ificant im pact on the welfare of Ma ni toba producers, Mr.

Chairman, whether or not they will realize the full potential of the world market and of the Canadian market for their product or whether their prices are undermined because of some desire in eastern Canada for a subsid ized price in order to enhance a livestock industry in eastern Canada. And that's been the net effect of the present feed grains policy, Mr. Chairman, is tha t it is working to the advantage of Que bec and Ontario and to the disadvantage of the prairies. Tha t is what the Saskatchewan study has established and it's in hundreds of millions of dollars, Mr. Chairman, it is no small sum.

It was argued for some period of time that it would bring about some sort of reasonable relationship in off-board grain pricing as between western Canada and eastern Canada. Mr. Chairman. it hasn't done that all. It has further aggravated a situation that has bothered western produc ers for many many years, and that is that eastern producers have somehow been in a position to take advantage of western Canadian production that would indeed enhance their ability to produce livestock and poultry and so on.

It seems to me that is a very im portant area for any prairie government to be involved in in order that when they have conferences at the national level, federal/ provi ncial conferences, tha t the thr ee prairie provinces would be strong enough with sufficient information to put forward a united front in order that eastern Canada does not take advantage of the three western provinces. And that's the only way it will work, Mr. Chairman. It isn't going to work if we each go our own way.

Saskatchewan has done a very indepth study on that issue and has come up with a report that is devastating to the present system that is now used. It condemns the system, Mr. Chairman. It demonstrates the losses in millions of dollars to each of the prairie provinces and it certainly should be a focal point for the next federal/provincial conference on agricultural policy, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me tha t this gov ernment in Ma ni toba should be equi pped with all the kn owledge that it can assemble, Mr.

Chairman, in order to take a position so that we can bring back to the producers of this province their share of the market at the right price for their production. There is no logic whatever in what is happening at the present time. So I think, Mr. Chairman, this is an area which this Min ister could use, the dollars provided in policy studies are dollars that could be used to do that kind of research so that when he goes down to the next meeting in July or whenever, that he would be fortified with all of the information in order to put forward his arguments. Mr.

Chairman, there is another area that I think is impo rtant and unless the government wants to fly by the seat of its pants - and that's what it's been doing - it should be looked at and should be studied as to its impact. And that is whether or not there is a negative situation developing with respect to the marketing of western grains to the Soviet Union because of the position taken by the United States over the Russian involvement in Afghanistan and whether or not the government of Manitoba, along with the other two prairie governments, are supporting a position that a boycott should continue. Because, Mr.

Chairman, it has been demonstrated by very knowledgeable people that there has been a dramatic downturn in the price of grain marketed internationally because of that policy of the United States and suppor ted by a number of governments, including the Canadian Government, Mr. Chairman. There's a lot of window dressing around those announcements of support, namely that if there is 3514

Monday, 12 May, 1980 negative im pact on producers' income that the government is going to make up the difference. Mr. Chairman, those are nice statements but I don't think we're going to see many dollars flow, because it's so easy to fudge the issue as to how much the losses were and what caused them, and it's always a debatable point in international marketing as to what really triggers the cause for those losses or the effect of those losses. It's easy to get around that, Mr.

Chairman, and I don't believe that there should be a federal/provincial conference this summer without the prairie Min isters taking a position on where Canada should be with respect to the boycott of sales of grain to Russia. It seems to me that the Chinese market, the Russian market, are the two best ma rkets we've got for prairie grain, Mr. Chairman, and we should not be playing that kind of game with what I consider to be two of our best customers.

In this case, only one is involved, but I don't believe we should be playing that kind of game because it is a game that is merely reducing dollars, income dollars, from prairie producers. Secondly, if it was an effective game, let's assume, Mr. Chairman, that the desire was that somehow the Russians should suffer a severe penalty economically for their involvement of Afghanistan. Let's assume that was the real desire, Mr. Chairman, then perhaps one could rationalize to some degree, although I wouldn't accept it on the basis of the farmers paying the bill, Mr. Chairman.

It would have to be shared by all Canadians or all Americans. But, Mr. Chairman, that isn't what is happening because the Russians sort of expect to realize about 240 million tonnes of grain annually, about one tonne per capita and, Mr. Chairman, a cutback of 17 million tonnes of grain represents a cutback of 7 percent on their supply side. Now, Mr.

Chairman, statistically, if you look at Canada Stats for Canada and for the USSR or for the whole world, you will quickly come to realize that our fluctuation, that the fluctuations in supply of grain either for livestock feed or human consumption, is much in excess of 7 percent from time to time. In fact, it ranges from almost 30 percent either way, up or down, Mr.

Chairman, and so to talk in terms of reducing a supply of grain to the Soviet Union of 17 mi llion tons and that is somehow going to impose a severe penalty on the Soviet Union for their external involvements militarily, you know, is absolute nonsense. It is nothing more than political window-dressing in the United States designe d to serve the success of the current President in the November elections and nothing more. Canadians should recognize it for what it is and not compromise the position of Canadian farmers by joining in that kind of a policy which in fact, Mr.

Chairman, is purely domestic-oriented; it has nothing to do with penalties that would be imposed on another nation; it has to do much more with the chances of success at the polls for Mr. Carter in November. We should not be used in that way and we shouldn't do those kinds of things, Mr. Chairman, to what we should consider one of our best customers for prairie production. Russia is one of our best customers, Mr. Chairman. It is not usually the way one treats their best customer. Regardless of their involvement in other areas, I don't believe, Mr.

Chairman, that we should use our food supply as a lever in order to influence their decisions in other matters. Mr. Chairman, I think a marriage counsellor would say you shouldn't use sex as a lever in a dispute in a household, and I think this is about the same thing. It rates about the same way, Mr . Chairman. So this is the argument that I would put forward to the Min ister that there is going to be a federal-provincial conference, Mr.

Chairman, soon and this Min ister will be hopefully attending that conference and I would hope that the three prairie provinces would not support a boycott of grain sales to any country, to any countr y, Mr. Chairman, because we need every dollar that we can get into this prairie economy; and especially the Manitoba economy which has been so stagnant for so long that we shouldn't compromise that income position.

We shouldn't compromise that income position that is there because of blanket support for a political position of our neighbouring country to the south, especially, in the knowledge that we know that it will not realize the objective and, that is, the imposition of a penalty on the Soviet Union. Given the kno wledge, Mr. Chairman, that boycott only represents a 7 percent reduction, the basis of their total needs for an annual period; and given the fact, Mr. Chairman, that swings in production are much greater than that from year to year everywhere in the world, including Canada. Now, Mr.

Chairman, what is to be gained by continuing to support that position? From what I can see there is nothing to be gained for Canada, not one io ta, Mr. Chairman. I can see a tougher bargaining scenario on the next wheat agreement with Canadians, you know, I can see that and that's a negative result, Mr. Chairman. I can see a position on the part of the Soviet Union, or any country that is so affected, of trying to become more self sufficient in this commodity in order to have less dependency on our exports or impor ts from this country. So, Mr.

Chairman, everything that I can see about it is a negative for Canada; it's a negative for Canada. Surely, Mr. Chairman, the Min ister should be in a position to indicate to this commi ttee just what his position is and is going to be on this issue at the next federal-provincial meeting, because I think it has very im portant ramifications on what happens to the prairie economy, as to whether we are going to play that kind of game or whether we are going to be in the bus iness of seriously marketing our production wherever the markets are obtainable throughout the world. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mem ber for St.

George, unless the Mini ster wants to - the Honourable Min ister. MR. DOWNEY: Thank you. I'd like to make a comment on the imposition of restricting grain sales to the Soviet Union. I think the member has made it very clear whose side he would be on; of course, it would be the Russians and not the Americans. - (Interjections)- No, he has certainly indicated that to this comm ittee and I have no reason to . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lac du Bonnet on a point of clarification. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the Min ister is suggesting that this is a question of sides. I merely 3515

Monday, 12 May, 1980 point out to him, Mr. Chairman, that it is our side that we ought to protect and that is the continued availability of markets for our production, and that has nothing to do with bombs that are dropping all over the world or anywhere in the world. It has to do with feeding people; it has nothing to do with the war front. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, the member has clearly stated his position that he would be in full support of Russians when it comes to providing them with food and if you have open warfare between that country and the United States, he would be still quite prep ared to provide them with supplie s. Mr.

Chairman, we don't take that position; we took the position of supporting what the federal government, the Mini ster of Grain Transportation and Wheat Board, Don Mazankowski, at that particular time stated that they would carry out the sales that had already been comm itted to Russia; that they would not move to fill the embargo, the lack of grain that the Russians would get because of the embargo from the United States. That was a clear position; we stated our supp ort for tha t position.

We also supported the position and made it very clear, I made it very clear from Day One that the farmers of this province should not be expected to carry the results on their backs of such a move. The farm community should not be expected to do that. Now, the member is suggesting we should have a study or study what the effects were. Mr.

Chairman, I believe at this particular time we have seen what would be expected, an immediate reduction in the prices in grains because of the world backing off or the amount of grain, the 17 million or 18 million tons which was involved in the embargo, hanging over the world market as a cloud. Mr.

Chairman, I guess we follow through from that particular period of time and we now see the Americans telling the Russians that they will honour part of that commitment on the longer term - and I think it's something like 8 million tons that they now say they will deliver on that initial agreement - which again changes the situa tion. The principle of course being , Mr. Chairman, that we do not supp ort the aggression of the Russians in international moves. We have no choice but to take that kind of a position. What are the other weapons that we have available to us?

As far as the farm community is concerned, I think that they shouldn't be expected to carry the burden; that has been commun icated to the last federal government. The changes that are going to take place now with the Americans honouring part of that commitment I would think would resolve some of the problems that have been created. I believe, in the long term, the sales of grains to Russia as far as we're concerned haven't been put in jeopardy by those kinds of moves. I have had indication from the Canadian Wheat Board, the Chief Comm issioner, that they intend to be selling on a normal basis to these countries.

At this particular time we are selling all the grain we can move and there haven't been any problems with sales. I guess we go back to the government that initially started selling grain to the Soviet countries and that of course being the late John Diefenbaker who moved very aggressively and I think he should be commended by the people of Canada for doing that. -(I nterjection)- Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Lac du Bonnet says he doesn't think he would, I think he would very much commend this policy. He was a very strong Canadian, a very outstanding Canadian, fighting for freedom. MR.

USKIW: He just flipped in his grave. MR. DOWNEY: Well, Mr. Chairman, he flipped in his grave many times as far as the comments from the Member for Lac du Bonnet are concerned. But he strengthened our military powers, he was a firm believer in all opportunities, or Canadian having many op portunities and, as I said, moved agg ressively and I think tha t he was to be commended for that.

At this particular time I would think that the impact of the move by the Americans in not selling grain to the Soviets is somewhat now going to put western Canada in a position of further assessing it at this particular time because the Wheat Board are going back to sell to the Soviets. I believe that the United States, living up to part of that commitment now, would somewhat change the pricing system for the grain farmers. The other particular issues that I think we have to look at and that has been the abundant supply of oil seeds that have been available.

They are now finding a market of, particularly in the last few days with the weather conditions that have developed with the drought in western Canada and northern United States, would somewhat make me think that we're going to see a firming up of all the prices.

And again, I do not believe that it would be in the best interests of Canadians and international safety to have moved aggressively to continue to take advantage of the sales that were cancelled by the States to Russia, but in fact in the best interests of the future of freedom and the democratic system that both the provincial and federal governments, all the federal and provincial governments, have acted responsibly. The longer term effects I think will be shown in these coming weeks.

As I have indicated we have seen somewhat of a strengthening of a lot of the grain prices and particul arly barley, we'v e seen a tremendous increase in the barley price. Still I think we have to look at -(In terjection)- Well, the members say everything dropped today. I think the longer term trend that has been indicated by the Wheat Board is that we are looking at strong demands for certain feed grains and that information is current. Mr.

Chairman, if we are to introduce any policies contrary to what I have just talked about, I would believe we might be in fact putting ourselves in the position of supporting the commun ists instead of being in dir ect opposition to their aggression in the international arena. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, it's a very interesting scenario here. The Mi nister alluded to the fact that it was John Diefenbaker who first launched a major campaign to open up a market in the communist world; that is true, Mr. Chairman.

Up until tha t time, up until 19 57, the Li beral Party of Canada consistently refused to trade with China on the basis of following an American policy. I recall very vividly, Mr. Chairman, tha t when the Diefen baker government decided to change that policy, or to 3516

Monday, 12 May, 1980 reverse it, the Am erican govern men t openly dis cussed ways and means of frustra ting the shi pments of Canadian grain to the communis t world, either through the misallowance of use of port facilities or load equipment; there are all sorts of mechanisms that were talked about as a means that would be emp loyed by the United States in order to jeopardize movement of Canadian grain to tha t part of the world. Mr. Chairman, the Prime Min ister at that time, John Diefen baker, was not swayed by those pressures.

What he did was he unloaded all of those stockpiles of wheat that were piled up in the prairie region for years under a Liberal regime and decided that wheat was no place for ideology and that it was time to market that wheat and to put some dollars in the pockets of our prairie produc ers who were nearly bankrupt, Mr. Chairman, for lack of sales. That's the history of how we got into the markets in the communist world, Mr. Chairman, and I commend them for that; I think that was a very good move.

It was followed by the Americans themselves deciding to enter that market, quite some period after, but it certainly followed through. Now we're back to the status quo ante, Mr . Chairman. We now have the Conservative government of Mani toba going back to an old Liberal policy of pre-Diefenbaker years, of saying we're not going to trade with the enemy sort of thing. We're going to keep our grain in the piles and then we're going to ... MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that. I said that the sales were going to be carried on as normal. We supp orted that policy of selling - (Interjection)- Yes, Mr.

Chairman, I stated very specifically that we supported the policy of not moving to take advantage of the situation as it had developed but would be continuing support of the position of con tinuin g the sales that had been negoti ated and would be negotia ted with the Canadian Wheat Board and the Soviet Union. That's exactly what I said and if the member tries to infer something else, he's totally out of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minnedosa. MR. DAVID BLAKE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The whole matter is under the Canadian Wheat Board.

The province has very very little say in whether the Wheat Board sells to the Soviet Union or whether it sells to Red China or not and I really can't see the point of the members opposite spending a whole afternoon of the commit tee's time on this particular item because really the decision here is only a very very small portion of the overall decision and you're certainly not going to influence whether Canada trades with the Soviet Union or whether it trades with Red China in this committee right here, so let's get on with the agricultural estimates. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken, the Member for Mi nnedosa. The Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the point is not well taken. The Member for Minnedosa, if he wasn't here for the full discussion I should then remind him, or if he was he wasn't listening, I should remind him that we were discussing the fact that Manitoba ought to have a policy in support of expanding the grain markets in order to sell our production so that we can maxi mi ze our inc omes in Man itoba, Mr. Chairman. Secondly, Mr.

Chairman, it was pointed out that the Min ister will be attending a Federal-Provincial Conference relatively soon at which time it seems logical, from my point of view, Mr. Chairman, it should be logical from his point of view, that the three prairie Min isters take a position of maximizing sales of grain throughout the world. Bar none, Mr. Chairman -(I nterjection)- No, they haven't got that position.

As long as they take the position that they will play the Carter political game on this question, they are they not allowing the Canadian Wheat Board to -(I nterjection)- Yes, it's Clark, but Clark is just a pupp et of Carter, Mr. Chairman, a strange combin ation. It used to be that the Liberals were the puppets of the American regime. But it also became obvious that Clark became a pupp et on this issue, Mr. Chairman. -(l nterjection)- Now, Mr.

Chairman, the fact remains that there will be a min isterial conference and that it seems to me that the interests of the prairie region will be better served if we got on with the job of marketing all of our production to the extent that we wish to market it, and in order that we maximize incomes for the prairie region. I don't believe that we should be sidetracked because of an election south of the border, Mr. Chairman. It cannot be demonstrated that this particular embargo is going to have any serious impact on the Soviet Union, it's tokenism in terms of its impact.

It is merely a political ploy in order to garner some votes for President Carter in the United States. Since it is not going to have the imp act that it is perceived it is going to have, then it seems logical that we shouldn't be party to such a farce, Mr. Chairman, and that we should maximize our sales to the extent that it's possible. If the Soviet Union wants 10 million tons more, we should sell them 10 million tons more, if we have it and if we can deliver it, Mr. Chairman.

So it has to do with logistics and nothing more; it should have nothing to do with ideology; it should have nothing to do with the American election campaign. That's all I'm saying, Mr. Chairman. The grain is there and can be moved out; it should be sold and it should be moved and should be delivered to whoever wishes to buy it. So, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the least that the Min ister should be in a position to know is the cost of this boycott to the prod ucers of Manitoba, to the producers of Canada. At least he should know that. He doesn't even know what it is, Mr. Chairman.

Secondly, he doesn't know what the long-term effects are of this kind of posturing which demonstrates our unreliability is a supplier of grain, Mr. Chairman. That's another point that ought to be consider ed because to the extent that we can demonstrate that our warehouses of food are always going to be available to the world if there is a market for them and if we have a willingness to sell them, or if we have a desire to provide incomes to our own people who produce it, then, Mr. Chairman, that is the kind of credibility that is in the long-term interest of Canadians as a whole, not only the producers, but 3517

Monday, 12 May, 1980 the whole of Canada because of its econ omic impact. It seems to me it's only a month-and-a-half away. I believe the annual conference of Min isters is in July. -(I nterjection)- Well, we might still be in estimates, but that has not deterred the Min ister from attending a conference, Mr. Chairman. We will give him leave. We may be reluctant if he doesn't want to sell our grain, Mr.

Chairman, to give him leave, but we will even pare with him if he wants to go down to the next Mini sterial conference and press for an all-out campaign to sell as much grain as can be sold to markets that are available bar none, Mr. Chairman, and quit messing around with the bit of nonsense that's going on in the United States at the moment. MR. DOWNEY: On the point as far as the selling of grain, Mr. Chairman, I've indicated many times in these comm ittee meetings that it's a matter of making sure that the farm community are not hurt.

At this particular time it is difficult to quant ify what the effects have been and that is being continually, of course, monitored by the -(I nterjection)- Well, Mr. Chairman, they say by whom? I guess it's a matter of department people continually in touch with and watching what is going on. A specific study on that particular issue at this particular time, no, it isn't.

But I have had staff keeping me up to date on what the effects are and as I've said earlier, and I don't think there's use in going over it again, I firmly believe - and I said this earlier - that I believe it would be more impo rtant to have a study on the effects or the input that provinces can have when it comes to the selling and marketing of our Canadian grains. I've said that, Mr. Chairman.

So what they're suggesting that I should do is reintroduce to my counterparts and to the federal government, the changes in the Canadian Wheat Board where, in fact, the provinces have more direct input into the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board, something that I would agree with. I think that that has to happen; that if we're going to have a provincial input into the total agricult ural - (In terject ion)- Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the members pick up a little phrase that they don't want to read the full part of it. I'm a firm supp orter of the Canadian -(I nterjection)- Well, Mr.

Chairman, I think it's a matter of being on the record. I'm a full supporter of the Canadian Wheat Board, as I am for the marketing of grains in the open system. I think this cou ntry can afford and needs two strong marketing systems with a transportation system to facilitate them. -(Int erjection)- Mr. Chairman, they say two. They don't understand that there are a lot of grains. In fact, probably almost half the grains and oil seeds sold out of Manitoba are sold on the open system, whether it be sunflowers, rape seed, flax seeds and other commodities.

I do believe that we have to continually work in the area of transportation and supporting the farmers and we've done that. We've moved the grain. The members opposite want to study it. We've moved it. You can tell that just by going out into the farm community today and ask the elevator companies or the farmers what their grain deliveries have been. There are certainly no problems as far as delivering of grain this spring, in opposition to last year and the years preceding that. We have been in a system of aggressively moving grain.

He says we should go to the federal Min isters conference in July to recommend tha t we - I just forget what his recommendations were, something to do with getting back with selling grain to Russia. We haven 't stopped and we will continue to expand the grain markets work towards the expansion of the grain markets for our grain farmers, as we will for the producers of other goods in this country, and other commodities. He talks about what happ ens.

We, last year, promoted - not only promoted, we were a part of nine provinces that were in disagreement with the Canadian Wheat Board poli cy on im position of quotas on feed grains, that we wanted to be held off - nine provinces ex cluding the province of Saskatchewan - they did not agree with that. Mr. Chairman, we weren 't hur t by the federal government. There was a strong feeling by all the provinces that we weren't in agreement with what was taking place but there wasn't any action. The Member for St. George says, hmm.

Well, I think it's a matter of once again . . . -(I nterjection)- Well, I think it's a matter of whether the federal government want to listen on issues that they want to or not. I think we deserve, as provincial governments, an op por tunit y to have ongoing input, not just at federal-provincial meetings. I think it's a matter of having continual input into that system and that I would suggest should be worked on through a study on how best that could be done. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There were a num ber of items raised in terms of the need for more research and/or at least positions that may or may not be taken by the provincial government. We've heard at least - maybe the Mini ster will get up and correct me - we've heard the Mini ster of Agriculture indicate that Manitoba does supp ort the boycott with respect to the marketing of grains to the Soviet Union as has been im posed by the Americans and suppor ted by his predecessor or his party's Prime Minister for a short period of time, and now the present Liberal government. What we're finding, Mr.

Chairman, is that this government is prepared to use farmers as the whipping boy of the re-election - at least it failed in the re-election bed of the federal Conservatives but it may help re-elect the present President of the United States - and they are prepared to sacrifice the incomes of farmers by using food as a weapon in the world. -(Int erjection)- Mr.

Chairman, even the President of the United States has backed off on his original sanctions in terms of the country of Iran, where he ori gina lly ind icated that he would be �repared to cut off medical aid and food to that country in terms of the sanctions that he was prepared to put on that country, and he backed off on that movement. Yet we have a reluctance by this adminis tration to at least come out openly and indicate their dissatisfaction with the continued policy of not selling grain to any nations in the world.

We are prepared to lose and forfeit a customer that has been, I think, long cherished by this country and the producers of this country in terms of the grain that is sold to Russia. 3518

Monday, 12 May, 1980 Mr. Chairman, I predict what will happen is that Russia will not lose that grain. Mr. Chairman, what will happen is that grain will get to Russia and it will get to Russia by the black market system - and it may even be Canadian - some of it will reach the Russian shores. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, how it will get there. You have, I believe, six large multinational corporations who are in the world grain trade area, Mr. Chairman, and those companies will neatly - I don't think the grain will go from country to country.

What will happen is that the invoicing system will go from country to country. The multinationals will sell to one of their subsidia ries in another country; that subsidia ry will sell to a third subsid iary; and it may go through five or six hands and the invoice will change so many different ways, but the grain will go direct from either U.S. ports or Canadian ports and head to its destination, where the markets exist. What impact will that be, Mr. Chairman? What will we hear from the Conservatives in Manitoba? We will hear that the Canadian Wheat Board in terms of export sales has not done a good job.

But they will come and tell us how good a job the private grain trade has done in the marketing of grain around the world, Mr. Chairman. The need for two strong marketing systems, as the Mi nister has said, that's how much support he has for orderly marketing of grain in this country and in terms of internal use and external use.

The Member for Gladstone, I think he stepped out here, on Friday he raised the spectre, or the red herring I believe, of saying, look, the prices were that much better on the open market system for barley - I think he quo ted the price of barley as compared to the wheat board price and I think he attempted to try and indicate that the domestic price of barley on the open market was far greater than it was on the export market, therefore the wheat board was doing a very poor job. Well, Mr.

Chairman, the Min ister should have at least done an analysis on the grain marketing situation as it exists directly in our own country and the losses that farmers have sustained over the last number of years. The Saskatchewan study, as the Member for Lac du Bonnet has pointed out on the marketings of feed grains within our own country, was if anything a complete condemnation of the present marketing system. It condemns and not only poi nts out tha t the two systems are incompatible, totally incompatible, Mr. Chairman.

Maybe the Member for Gladstone will listen, that there are in fact, two markets and there are two prices. There is the export market, which through the Canadian Wheat Board compe tes against other countries for the sale of grains; and there's supposed to be a national grain policy for the sale of domestic feed grains in this country, which was established I believe, as far back as 1974.

Now, the Canadian market is supposed to be geared to the selling of domestic feed grains based on a price that is arrived at of U.S. corn entering the Ontario market, with some formula to deal with soy bean for the protein content of the grains. That should be the average price of feed grains in this country. Now what has happened, Mr.

Chairman, is that while there is an average established it seems that, in the last three years especially, the price that feed grains have been sold in this country have fallen, the price to produc ers have fallen, far below what they should have received based on the corn competitive price, as it's called, for corn deliveries to Ontario. The average that corn was selling into Mo ntreal, Mr.

Chairman, and the Mem ber for Gladstone might be interested, that the feed grain price based on that corn competitive price should have been: for wheat 3.57 a bushel - that's the average price over the last three years; for oats at 1.70 a bushel; for barley, the main feed, at 2.51 cents; the average price of that grain based over the years '76 to '79. But, Mr. Chairman, what has been the average price to producers? What we have found is that the street price, as it is commonly known, over the last three years we've had roughly 1.51 for barley, 99 cents for oats and 2.36 for wheat. Based on what?

On the Winnip eg Commody Exchange as an average price. Now when we take into account that price, plus the shipping costs, it ends up that producers in western Canada and in Manitoba have lost roughly 36 cents a bushel for every bushel of barley that they have sold on the open market; they have lost 16 cents a bushel for every bushel of oats that they have shipped; and they have lost 49 cents for every bushel of wheat that they have delivered on the open market system. Mr.

Chairman, what has happ ened and this government is prepared to stand by and not say anyth ing other than saying that we do need competition in the grain marketing system. Mr. Chairman, we have competition in the grain marketing system till it's coming out your ears. To the detrimen t of whom ? To the detri ment of producers, Mr.

Chairman; and to the benefits of two segments in our society, multinational grain traders who are primarily the sole marketers of that grain and they have been marketing the grain below the formula that was established as a national feed grain policy, they have marketed below that to the tune, Mr. Chairman, that they have taken approxi mately what one would consider about a 30 percent markup, a 30 percent theft from the producers of Ma nitoba, Mr. Chairman.

Thir ty percent of the increased costs that produc ers of Manitoba have lost of their income, 30 percent of their incomes in the marketing of feed grains have gone to the coffers of the multinational grain trade. The remainder 70 percent of that loss went directly to the producers in Ontario and Quebec. The Mi nister of Agriculture in the province of Manitoba indicates that he wishes to expand and sustain the agricultural meat production in this province and he wants to build it up. Well, Mr.

Chairman, surely one of the greatest moves that this Min ister could say is that there should be a complete revamping of the present feed grain policy and the present feed grain sales and system in this country to be able to accurately reflect what the price of grain is to western producers, based on what grain can be imported into Ontario; not to give Ontario and Quebec producers an advantage in terms of what has happened over the last three years. But no, he says, we need the open market system, we need two strong competitive marketing systems.

And what does he use as the reason that he wants to have more provincial input into the marketing of grain in this cou ntry? He wants to have the provinces involved in the Canadian Wheat Board. 3519

Monday, 12 May, 1980 Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Wheat Board has been the scapegoat for Tory adminis trations in Manitoba and Alberta. The attacks have continually cantered on the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Chairman. Well, the Mini ster shakes his head and says no. Last Friday who entered into a debate, or at least attempted to enter the red herring, of saying that producers in Manitoba lost money by shipping their grain through the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr.

Chairman, we have an estab lished price, or supposedly an established price, of feed grain prices in this country, yet we were prepared to allow feed grains to be sold below that market price, Mr. Chairman. As a result, the Wheat Board hardly marketed any feed grains in this country because they were not permitted to do so, Mr. Chairman, because their set price had to be based on the corn competitive price and not on the open market system and the open market system cost produc ers in Manitoba at least 30 million. Well, have we had that analysis done by the Minis ter of Agriculture?

No, we haven't, we haven't had any analysis. We have had an analysis done I believe, that he doesn't wish to release to us yet, and that is the impa ct on transportation users of changing statutory grain rates. I believe that study was undertaken for the province by the professor from the University of Manitoba.

If the Min ister has that study, I believe that even before he has formula ted some response or at least some governmental position, he should put it out to members and to the public to at least debate the issue and at least bring about some commentary so the Minis ter might know on what position he takes. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I would hope that he does release it, that he does release that study rather soon because, Mr.

Chairman, there has been a similar study done in the province of Alberta, and the study had also very critical remarks, to say the least, on what the impact will be on rural Alberta and the grain handling system in that province should be freight rates change. Mr. Chairman, I asked the Min ister whether he was aware of certain things a number of weeks ago about what would happen to our rural areas, our small communi ties, the number of elevators that would close, should the statutory grain rates change. Mr.

Chairman, the province of Alberta did not want to even associate itself with a study that came to the conclusion that if we increased the Crow Rate five times, which would be the commercial rates, what would happen in that province. Mr.

Chairman, if compensation is paid at five times statutory rates through the grain companies the num ber of elevators presently in Alberta would drop to 62 percent of the present amount of elevators; 40 percent of the elevators would go in the province of Alberta if the Crow Rate was removed and commercial rates, as is being asked for by the rai lways now, not compensatory rates, Mr. Chairman, but commercial rates that the railways are now asking for, 40 percent of the elevators would go.

The province of Manitoba, have they set up and made a position with respect to this , what the impacts would be on rural Manitoba? We've had no comments from the Min ister of Agriculture. He wants more say in the way the Wheat Board is handling its grain policy. Mr. Chairman, this Mini ster clearly is not operating his department in terms of providing the produc ers and Manitobans with as much information and as clear a direction, in terms of making sure that our producers have adequate incomes in which they can survive the cost price freeze which they are in, in the areas that we have touched upon today.

Surely the Min ister should be able to look ahead in some of these areas, rather than continually hinge his entire policies on the past, on a system that clearly has not worked, clearly is not working and is there at the expense of the producers. The system is gaining and is growing clearly at the expense of the producers of this province. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I just go back and re-emphasize one of the points that I made earlier, that we are marketing all the grain that can be transported and handled at this particular time.

The markets are not affected, at this particular time, by the boycott as far as the actual marketing of the grain is concerned. it's been said many times by the Canadian Wheat Board. We are not in the position of cutting back our sales; we are aggressively pursuing them. That's one particular point that I wanted to make sure is highlighted. One of the other areas that the Member for St. George is suggesting is that we are in fact in a position of allowing multinationals to take advantage via the black market.

However, I guess he is aware, or should be aware if he isn't, that the majority of the grains that were embargoed to Russia were feed grains. The Canadian Wheat Board is the sole marketing agency for all feed grains leaving Canada, that in fact any price increases due to, or anybody selling grain out of Canada . . . MR. URUSKI: It isn't in the United States. MR. DO WNEY: Well, it is in Canad, Mr. Chairman, and at this particular time we're talking of the protection that the Manitoba farmers have and they have that through the Canadian Wheat Board.

All grain sales, feed grain sales leaving Canada are sold by the Canadian Wheat Board. For the Member for St. George's benefit, approxi mately half the feed grain is sold in eastern Canada and half is sold in western Canada; that he as a turkey feeder or producer of livestock, or anyone is a livestock feeder, is buying at the domestic price. The people who are working in the packingho use indus try in Manitoba or working in any of the agricultural service indus tries then, in fact, are part of the whole effects of feed grain policy. My policies are to encourage the further use of feed grains in western Canada.

The further processing of the agriculture goods right here in Manitoba and in western Canada would be in the best interests of the provincial economy. We support that policy and we have from Day One. A further div ersified agricu lture, as far as I am concerned, is a more stabilized agriculture and that is our main stand; that we have to further utilize the markets that are available on the domestic basis, on the international basis.

I believe we have to further encourage that use of feed grain in western Canada, not at the expense of the feed grain producers but to further support the feed grain producers, we should be encouraging a lot greater use of feed grains in western Canada. 3520

Monday, 12 May, 1980 Now we look at the problems between the movement of raw products, the cost of moving raw prod ucts and the mo vement of other types of processed agricultu ral produc ts and we have discrepancies. People who are shipping meat products out of this country are in fact paying the going rate. I think that it's a matter of not requesting that we go to the full cost of moving grain out of western Canada but we get more of an equalization of opportuni ties for further development of our raw goods in western Canada. To support a policy like the Member for St.

George suggests is to further support the closing of the packinghouse indus try in this province, as it would be to suppor t the aggression of the Soviet Union on other countries that are innocent, to not appose that kind of move. I believe we have to be very firm -(I nterjection)- He says, what are we doing sacrificing our farmers? We make it very clear that we're not sacrificing our farmers, that it's in the best interests of the farm commu nity that the government should protect them when it comes to the effects that the embargo has on them. But let me tell you, Mr.

Chairman, that I do not support a policy such as suggested by members oppo site that we should support a countr y that marches in on other countries and then some day be in a position of sending our young people to war, farm people who have fought for freedom in this country, and if he suppor ts that, Mr. Chairman, then, well, Mr. Chairma, I'm speaking as ... MR. CHAIR MAN: The Member for Lac du Bonnet really had the Chair's eye first.. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the Minister knows full well that no one on this side suggested any support for the Soviet Union's actions in Afghanistan, Mr. Chairman.

All that we have argued for is that we should not curtail grain sales to the Soviet Union. The two are totally unrelated, the one is not even a subject matter of this committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George on the same point. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, what we have said and contrary to what the Mini ster has said, what I have said is that we should not use food as a weapon, Mr. Chairman. Any country that is in the export position of food should not use food as a weapon against another country, Mr. Chairman. Not to supp ort what he has suggested. -(l nterjection) Mr.

Chairm an, I have some que stions for the Minister. Mr. Chairman, the Min ister made a statement that approximately one-half of the feed grains that are marketed in this country, about one-half of them are being marketed in western Canada. Mr. Chairman, I have figures for the years 1976 to 1979 which suggest that out of a total of excess of 300 million bushels of feed grains that were delivered to the open market system, app roximately 100 million bushels were sold out of elevators to the prairies in B.C. during those three years.

Has the Minister got other figures to indi cate that these figures are somehow, for the three years that I've quoted, are somehow out of line and not the 50 percent that he has mentioned? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I believe the figures the member is referring to, what would actually have been delivered to elevators and not what has been fed on farms and produced. There are other ways of ma rketing grain other than to elevators, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: Well, Mr.

Chairman, does the Minister then dispute the figures that Manitoba farmers, have lost more than 30 million in the last three years by selling their feed grains, on the present open market system, that were used to be fed, within this country, primarily in eastern Canada and if he does dispute them, I'd like to know his position in this respect - how he has come up with that analysis and where he stands on this issue. MR. DOWNEY: Well, first of all, I dispute them because I think we have to take a lot more into consideration that what we have seen come forward from the Member for St. George.

He is suggesting that because of the difference between what the price that was received at the market point, that was sold into the domestic feed grain market as opposed to eastern Canada, as opposed to what would have been received from the Canadian Wheat Board system ... MR. URUSKI: For eastern Canada, for domestic consumption. MR. DOWNEY: . . . for do mestic in eastern Canada, created that shortfall. I guess the point he's arguing is tha t what system of allocating that particular grain to eastern Canada is available to the eastern Canadians, or to the western farmers.

Now, we have seen somewhat of a movement direct from farmer to feeder in eastern Canada over the past few months, which probably has corrected that somewhat. I think there's a lot more to be taken into consideration when you start looking at the interest costs that farmers have had to face because of a shortage of cash flow. -(In terjection)- The member says that grain has to be there anyway. I believe we have for too long expected the farmers to carry the costs of carrying charges, of interest, storage charges and the whole burden has been carried by the farming community.

I believe that if we had a system of moving this grain and taking advantage of the markets as they become available, that we would remove a lot of the problems that are now carried by the farmers. I go back to one other point that the Member for St. George makes, that I suggest the provinces have more control of the Canadian Wheat Board - I didn't specifically say that. What I said was that a study within the system should be taken to suggest how tha t could take place and if it would be acceptable to the federal government and the provinces.

We have something like several, well the largest percentage of our income s in western Canada come from the marketing of grains. I believe that on an ongoing basis there is room for a structured mechanism that would have, or at least allow the provinces to have an input into that 3521

Monday, 12 May, 1980 particular system. Not control, I don't think it's a necessity to have direct control. We see a comm issioner system, commis sioners appoin ted by the federal govern ment; we see advisory commit tee elected by the farmers.

There is a void in there as far as the provincial governments are concerned in having any dir ect in put or consultation on an ongoing basis with that system and I think, I really think we can strengthen the Canad ian Wheat Board and its position in the marketplace, if we have all the provinces pulling co operatively to market grain for western Canada, and that's basically my position. I believe we can strengthen the Canadian Wheat Board.

Let's just go back and look at some of the recommendations that came out of one particular study, in a task force done on the marketing of grain and agriculture, Agriculture for the '70s I believe, it was commis sioned by the then Min ister of Agriculture, Bud Olsen; Claig Elson, a few other individuals were on it, I think it was a five-man study.

And one of their major concerns at that particular time, and what did the members opposite, they talk about airing public documents, what was said in there was pretty much the feeling of the farm communi ty; but again it got put on the shelf and not discussed openly and I felt that some pretty good positive statements and direction were given from that report.

One of the concerns, and it is trul y being demonstrated, the individuals who are in the farm community, producing grain, feel somewhat that they have been left out as far as the input is concerned, the new generation of farmers, that there was a lack of un dersta ndin g what the ob jectives of the Canadian Wheat Board are. I believe, and I lived in the farm community when we've gone through a period of time when there was a concern that farmers were being taken advantage of and that's why it was implemented.

I felt the same way, but I still feel that there is room for a continual update and monitoring of what has taken place in a system that is structured for and in the best interests of Canadian agriculture, and particularly Mani toba farmers. And I don't think it's in the best interests of grain marketing to suggest that we shouldn't have an ongoing opportunity to discuss what their policies are. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to ask the Min ister whether he supports the feed grain policy of the government of Canada to establish a firm price of feed grains that would be sold in this country and primarily to eastern Canada, that was established on the corn competitive price with the soy bean formula. Does his government support that formula for the sale of feed grains as being a bench mark for the sale of feed grains in this country? MR. DOWNEY: As fr as far as the corn competitive price that the member refers to, do we suppor t that formula?

I think, you know, at this particular time, I think it's an opportunity to suggest that there is one other formula that I don't support and that is the domestic pricing for bread wheat. Not only in the feed grain, I suggest that in putting a ceiling on the domestic price for wheat has somewhat inhibi ted our producers from taking full advantage of the world price for our bread wheats.

I think some several weeks ago, the Presiden t of the Un ited Gr ain Growers made a comment where, in the figures they presented at that time, it was costing the western Canadian farmers something like 1 million to 2 million a week because of the feed grain policy. No, when it comes to affecting the prices of farmer commodities at below what they would sell at on the world market, I believe that we should in fact be able to sell to the best advantage and when those kinds of policies affect that advantage, then I don't support them. MR.

URUSKI: Well, I'm not sure that I understood the Min ister but I gather that he would support a policy then that our feed grains could be sold in competition with corn, which is on the world market or in other words, the North American market, coming into this country, and our prices would be geared to be able to compete with the importation of corn. Am I correct in that assumption?

Because the price of - corn is coming into Ontario at a certain price or it can be brought in from the U.S. markets which is not a Canadian market, so that our feed grains really have to compete with the corn price, the average corn price, that is established in Chicago and could be brought into Ontario.

Being that he favours our crops as he mentioned that he's not in favour of domestic wheat for milling prices being set, then I am making the assumption - and I want him to correct me if I am wrong - that he does sup port the principle of pricing our domestic feed grains to eastern Canada along the lines that grains can be imported from the United States. Is that correct? MR. DOWNEY: Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, we're basically on an international pricing system to start with. MR. URUSKI: Am I correct then in assuming that you do support that type of a system of setting the price?

I want to tell him that if that's our domestic feed grain policy of setting the price then do we support it or do we want change? If we don't support it, then there must be some alternative that the Min ister is thinking about in terms of change as to how we arrive at a price in this country for feed grains. Do we establish a firm price that is to be sold or do we support the present way the feed grain system is being handled in terms of setting a price? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, the mem ber is ask ing me if I support - if I und erstand him correctly - the pricing of western Canadian feed grain in Ontario or eastern Canada at the same price at which they can purchase corn from the United States. MR. URUSKI: Right. MR. DOWNEY: I think before I would suggest at this particular time, that we have to look at many other things that have to be brought into, where we would end up if we changed it and again I think that just to come out and say that, yes, I support or, no, I don't; it would be unfair. I think we have to look at the im port duties both ways, im port and export 3522

Monday, 12 May, 1980 duties as they relate to the movement of product back and forth. MR. URUSKI: There's no import and export duties on grain. MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there are import and export duties on grains moving in and out of the United States. That's one area; I think the other one that has to be brought into the picture is the transportation issue which again is something that puts a totally different light on the picture. MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess I'll call it 4:30. This clock is a couple of minutes slow, comm ittee, so I am leaving the Chair and will return at 8 o'clock.

SUPPLY - COM MUNITY SERVICES AND CORRECTIONS MR. CHAIRMAN, Abe Kovnats (Radisson): This committee will come to order. I would direct the honourable members' attention to page 20 of the Main Estimates, Department of Communi ty Services and Corr ections. Resolu tion No. 29, Clause 3. Communi ty Health and Social Services. The Item is (c), Home Care Services

(1) Home Care Assistance - the Honourable Min ister. HON. GEORGE MINAKER (St. James): Mr. Chairman, on Friday afternoon when we broke off the Honourable Member tor Seven Oaks voiced a concern that he was skeptical that we would carry out the expending of the moneys that are allotted for this year's budget and would watch with interest, in fact thought that we probably would not be able to expend our moneys.

I can assure the honourable member that we anticipate that the funds will be expended, and just to draw back to the honourable member's mind the fact that when they were in government that I could draw to his attention that back in 1975-76 when the vote figure was some 5.14 million, that in actual fact only 4.747 million was spent; and in 1976-77, the following year, the amount in the estimates to be expended was 7.547 million when in actual fact only 6.12 9 million was expended for an underspending of some 1.4 million. The same thing occurred in 1977178 and 1978/79, there were some underexpenditures.

But I don't say that in a critical manner other than I think probabl y the government at that time may have been over optimistic that they would be able to carry out the services and possibly the need was not there; or the ability to carry it out wasn't as thorough as they thought it might be. So I just wanted to point out to the honourable members that it is our anticipation that we will expend the moneys that are put into this year's budget and I would hope that he wouldn't remain skeptical like he was on Friday.

I think basically that was my only comment I wanted to ma ke, to reassure the Hono urable Member for Seven Oaks that we won't be dragging our feet in this area. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, the Min ister is right, or partially right. It is quite difficult to know exactly to the cent what you're going to spend. But the Min ister should remember that the few years that he talked about when this was rather a new program, and we had no indication, we had no past record to go on. As far as 1977-78, there was a small amount of money that wasn't spent.

The Mini ster should remember also tha t there was a cha nge of government and the government that came in with all this hullabaloo of restraint. So what concerns my colleague and myself is that, all of a sudden, this year, and that seems to be the pattern, is that a very small increase, and all of a sudden, this year, there's a larger increase and this is why we are asking the Min ister to make sure this is not just a gesture and that the money will be spent.

We see that in certain areas, all through this department and others, but in areas that this year it is catching up after quite a reduction in previous years and that's also the case in certain cases of some of the employeess that as soon as the government came in, there was a wholesale firing, or if not firing, at least not replacing all the staff and all of a sudden there has been a change. Mr.

Chairman, we should be practically finished with this without intending to muscle anybody, but I'd like to ask a question of the Mini ster and I know that, I think he's given this information but late on Friday and amongst all the other things I was trying to get done, I didn't get it. Could the Min ister give us the average monthly number of persons receiving the different selective services. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, un der nursing services, which would be your registered nurses, we have in 1978 there were 2,871 - these are average monthly num ber of persons receiving these - and in 1979 it was 3,075.

In the auxiliary services, which would be your licenced practical nurses, 845 in 1978; 1,1 11 in 1979. Therapy services, which would be Arthritis Society, 328 in 1978; and 294 in 1979. I think there was an explanation of the fact that - (Interjection)- Home help services in 1978, 3,835; in 1979, 4,396. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Chairman, then the reason why I ask this question is that the Min ister had in answer to a question by my colleague from Seven Oaks, that mentioned that the cost had gone down, there wasn't so much of an increase because it had been changed to nonprofessional service and the figure doesn't really bear this out at all. The nursing services in 1977, in our last year, was 2,84 1, that was increased to 2,87 1 and then to 3,075, so there was no reduction of that at all. The LPN or auxiliary services went from 658 to 845 to 1, 111 , and that's hardly reducing the professionals.

The therapy - well, that is not a good indication - it was 328, went down to 294 but that is now covered in the hospitals. The home help service, that was in creased approximately the same as, proportiona te from 3,300 to 3,835 and now 4,396. So, Mr. Chairman, then the concern that we have that why was the average not that much higher, it goes back to a lot of that has to do with the wages and there's less than a 6 percent yearly increase - quite a bit less than a 6 percent increase - and I wonder if the Min ister knows what 3523

Monday, 12 May, 1980 we're paying? I'm not too concerned about the nursing service and the LPN, the professionals, the home help services. I wonder what we're paying them now. Mr. Chairman, I'd like further information also on therapy. The Mi nister is saying that now that is covered in the general hospitals and I think it is a good situation. I think that volunteers drive them there, but is there a special card - how does that work?

For instance, is it only the people that are being panelled to go on home care that are getting the service in the hospital, because it isn't covered for outpatients in most hospitals. I'm talking about therapy now, the therapists. Do you have to be referred by a doctor, do you get a card to show that you have been panelled, that you are receiving home care? That's another question I would like to have the Min ister answer. MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, maybe I didn' t explain it carefully enough to the honourable member with regard to how the 89.48 average monthly cost of home care was arrived at, but basically it related back the total num ber of caseloads for the year that were dealt with became the divisor into our cost to provide the service. What the honourable member just received from me was the average monthly number of persons receiving these services. It could be that one person could be receiving two or three of those services.

So how we arrive at the average cost per caseload is to deal with the number of caseloads that we've dealt with over the year, which was some, I think, 15,500 roughly, if one added those figures. That has gone up from the year before and as I said that

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-56a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf 56a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	35d2a03ab70362c455950225a8402b3a180d2b83

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