Manitoba Hansard — 62 Page 1941 (Sitting 71, 26th Legislature, 5th Session)

26-5-71

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison Vol. VII No. 71 8:00p.m. Tuesday, April17, 1962. 5th Session, 26th Legislature Printed by R. ·s. Evans, Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Tuesday, Aprii 17th, 1962. MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 3(

d) to (f) -- passed. Items 4, 5, 6 and 7 passed. MR. PA ULLEY: In connection with No. 7 -- (Interjection) -- Pardon? Oh this is Co- operatives. At least I think you called 7. MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 4 -- Resolution 28. MR. PAULLEY: Oh, excuse me. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Resolution 28, Item 4. Item 5, Resolution 29 -- MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could explain what he has un der this -- (Interjection) -- No -- just a brief discussion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 29 -- MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, really I was serious. What does the agricultural de velopment cover -- in brief. MR. HUTTON: Ag rep service.

MR. MOLGAT: Thank you. This is the ag rep service? Well under this, Mr. Chair man, I do have some questions because this afternoon it seemed to me that the Minister was indicating a new policy on ag reps, and I wonder if I heard him right.when he was speaking earlier today -- and this was under another item I must admit -- but I gathered from what he said that he didn't have the intention of adding any more ag reps as such. Was that actually what he meant in his statement this afternoon? MR.

HUTTON: I wouldn't put it that way, that we rule out adding an.y more, but I think that when we think of incteasing our extension service that we want to examine very care fully what we are trying to do, and I think generally speaking -- generally speaking, we need more specialists. There is a greater need for more specialists than there is for ag reps, but this doesn't rule out the fact that we may need ag reps in particular areas where a particular situation or circumstance or development takes place .. MR. ROBERTS: Mr.

Chairman, on the remarks of the Minister about more special ists, rdidn't quite get this said before 5:30. I was referring to the Department of Animal Pathology, speaking of specialists, that the work could be carried out of veterinary extension -- that your agricultural representatives are many times called upon to be veterinaries as well as agricultural representatives. You refer to a greater number of specialists in the field.

I suggest that this probably would be -- I am sure would be of a great deal of value to these rural people, the farmers of Manitoba, if this department could send veterinarians into the field as extension workers too. Not to, in any way, infringe upon the practice of veteri narians who are now in the field, solely as extension workers to recommend, to advise and to assist farmers with veterinarian problems, generally speaking, not specific problems. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 29 -- passed. Resolution 30 -- passed. Resolution31-, MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Chairman, on Resolution 31 and Co-op Services, I note from the report that it appears that the volume of business that is being done by the co-operatives is still on the increase. I'd like to ask the Minister one question in connection with the co-ops that he may not answer because it might deal with the question of government policy, but I do note that recently there seems to be a concentrated effort being made in some quarters to have the co-operative societies and enterprises liable for income tax similar to corporations so it is plain.

Now I want to ask the Minister whether or not the department or the government have formulated any policy in respect of this drive at the present time and the taxation of co operatives on the income tax basis. Also, I would like to hear from the Minister -- we have. been discussing in the House from time to time the developments of co-ops in the north and other parts of the province in conjunction with our fishermen, but in particular with our Indian and Metis -- I would like to know what the plans of the department are in respect of a further development of co-ops in these particular areas. MR.

HUTTON: Well there are four co-operatives amongst the Indian and Metis now, and the policy of the government is to give backing to federated co-operatives in respect to inventories where this assistance is requested and where, in the judgment of federated co operatives and in the judgments of the Co-operative Services Branch and in the judgment of April 17th, 1962 Page 1941 i ____ J

:(Mr,,--liutton, cont'd.) ..... the Community Development Branch of the Department of Welfare, -such a co-operative movement is considered to be sound and deserving of this support. As I say, so far there have been four established. Two of them have received substantial support from federated co-ops, with the provincial government underwriting a portion of these finances, protecting the federated co-op from losses that they might sustain. Actually, the underwriting is done by the Co-op Promotion Board and the province in turn underwrites them.

As far as the movement, or if you want to designate it to tax co-operatives concerned, this is not a mat ter that has received any great thought in our department because it isn't a matter of provin cial jurisdiction, and I really don't care to try and comment on it. It's a highly involved mat ter and I think I would want to be well-prepared before I made any statements on it. I think that answers your questions. MR. PAULLEY: ....•... if I heard him correctly that there were two co-ops that were set up with governmental support or guarantees to the federated co-ops; I believe it was two that he mentioned.

I wonder if he would mind telling us which two and also may I ask him - he mentioned the fact of this being done somewhat in co-operation, or through the Department of Welfare. Who is responsible? Which department is responsible for the promotion of co ops insofar as the Indian and Metis settlements are concerned, the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Welfare? MR. HUTTON: Well to give you a correct answer let me put it this way. The co operative movement amongst the Indian and Metis so far has been a spontaneous thing.

It's been a result of the -- in part, of the Community Development program amongst the Indian and Metis combined with their own inate desire to better themselves; and they have seen in the co operative movement or the co-operative principle, a stepping-stone to identifying themselves with a better way of life. Actually in the matter of assistance to their efforts it is a co-opera tive venture between the Department of Welfare, the Community Development Branch, the Co operative Services Branch in the Department of Agriculture and Federated Co-operatives. MR. PAULLEY: •..•••. where are the co-ops located. MR.

HUTTON: Shoal River and Norway House. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 31 -- passed. 32 -- passed. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments and also I made some comments the other day. I mentioned the credit union movement and whether the government was pre pared to promote it and also whether the Department of Agriculture which is in charge of the Co-operative Services Branch, if they are prepared to engage a chartered accountant as head of the Audit Department for credit unions?

I think this is an important matter and I would per sonally like to see a chartered accountant on the staff of the department to audit credit unions. I had one or two other items, I was called out to the phone booth for a minute and when I came back the items had passed, but I still feel that I would like to bring one or two matters to the Minister's attention. One has to do with community pastures. I had a man out to see me late last fall; he had brought some cattle to the Woodlands .Pasture and he had lost two head.

His neighbour had also lost one and he said that he had been out to the pastures in summer on a Sunday and it had been a very hot day, the cattle had had no water and he felt that the cattle were very poorly looked after; and while he got remuneration for the head he lost; they had agreed on certain terms and later on when the settlement was finalized it didn't amount to what they had agreed on earlier. I would like to know the arrangements that the government has with the community pastures. Are the people that are looking after them, are they responsible? And to what extent?

And another matter which deals with the Artificial Breeders Association, but that has already passed so I'll leave that for the time being; MR. GRAY: ......•. now or wait until -- on 8 -- (Interjection) -- Yes. Can I say a word now ...... . MR. PAULLEY: No, we're on number 7. MR. GRAY: I thought number 8 was called. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Chairman, let's stop bothering about what number we're on. Let's deal with 7, if there are any further points on it, and then we will deal with 8. Does anyone wish to speak on number 7 -- let him do so. -- (Interjection) -- MR.

PAULLEY: There's one or two questions -- actually one is a request that I would like to make of the Minister, dealing with 7. I note that in the report of the department, on Page 1942 April 17th, 1962

(Mr. PauUey, cont'd.) .•..• page 67, it notes that detailed information concerning the opera tion of credit unions and other co-operatives is available in reports obtainable upon request. l l_J.ereby request of the Minister these reports. I, believe that previously they were contained within the report of the department itself, but I just noticed this note and I would like him to supply me with the information that is available other than what we have in the report. I also notice, Mr. Chairman, that under this particular

section the question of Mani toba Marketing Board is also under this particular section. I notice that there is only one marketing board at the present time, namely that of the Honey Marketing Board, and I would like to know if the report tells us that for the year under review the Board was not required to meet because it did not receive any applications for marketing plans to be considered.

I would like to know from the Minister as to whether or not the department carries on any pro motional work in respect of the setting up of marketing boards in the various commodities within the Province of Manitoba -- (Interjection) -- None at all. Then is there available for anybody desiring information in respect of marketing boards, information within the depart ment as to how they go about setting up a marketing board? -- (Interjection) -- And there is no promo tion as far as the department is concerned on this?

I wonder if the Minister would be kind enough, in addition to the request for information on the co-operatives and credit unions, that he would give me the various brochures, if any, that the department has as to how a group would go about setting up or initiating plans for a marketing board in the province. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, on that same point, I wonder if the Minister could !ell us when the amendments to the Natural Products Marketing Act will come into effect? Perhaps I should know that but it slipped my mind.

And secondly, this afternoon, the Minister intimated that there was a possibility that there would be a vote taken -- Vegetable Marketing Board. Does he have any concrete information as to time, or not? What about the change in the legislation now? MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 7 •..•• :MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, I still feel that I want an answer for my question. ls the government prepared to engage a chartered accountant as one of the auditors to audit credit unions because credit unions are growing by leaps and bounds.

We have many multi-million dollar organizations and surely they need to be looked after properly and I'm sure that I'm ask ing not too much when I ask for at least one chartered accountant to be on the staff. I would also like to know from the Minister whether they're contemplating any change in policy regarding community credit unions for Greater Winnipeg. This is another area I spoke on previously and I think the matter deserves an answer. MR. HUTTON: Mr.

Chairman, I don't think there's any reason or any evidence that the quality of the qualifications of the personnel in the Co-operative Services Branch is such that it should be of any concern to the credit unions. I think that they can rest assured that these men who are employed by the government in a supervisory capacity for the credit union movement are qualified and I frankly can •t see the need to -- if indeed these men are not char tered accountants or there isn't any chartered accountant I think in other respects they are qualified for the work that they have to carry out.

We do not contemplate to my knowledge em ploying a chartered accountant. In respect to community pastures they are operated under an Advisory Committee which is made up of patrons of the pasture, and these people, this Advisory Committee made up of patrons of the pasture are responsible for the service and management of the pasture, subject to, of course, the rules and regulations of the PFRA and the pasture is under their manage ment and subject to their wishes. I think that covers the points. MR. FROESE: Mr.

Chairman, I still feel that I would like to know from the Minister whether there is going to be change of policy regarding community credit unions for Greater Winnipeg. On this other matter of auditing I'm not so confident of the people employed in the audit department as our Minister is. I !mow from experience that we've had two audits in a particular credit union, one by a chartered accountant firm, another one by the government audit branch, and the two were not the same and didn't come out the same. Therefore, I feel that it is essential that we at least have one chartered accountant among the staff employed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 8. Economic Research -- Passed? MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I wish to apologize tO the Honourable Member April 17th, 1962 Page 1943

(Mr. Gray, cont'd.) .••.• from Rhineland and my Leader -- (Interjection) -- I got up earlier because you called it· passed. I have never yet tried to take away the glory of anyone that wishes to speak ahead of me, and as a matter of fact that when they speak I probably will not because they cover my subjects most of the time. I have no other boss in this House, except yourself, Mr. Chairman. In connection with the Economic Research, I remember the admin istration after the war had put aside $750, OOO every year for economic research and so to speak for a rainy day.

I have always opposed this idea because at that time, and even now, the health services and the old age pension and other services are so low that I thought this money could be used at that time for a better purpose perhaps than the so-called trust created for any emergency. However it turned out that perhaps .the ·money was used usefully because the rural electrification was built by this money. But still I'm not in accord with that because once there is an emergency today money should not be laid away for tomorrow, because tomorrow will settle its problem itself.

I still believe in posterity; I'm still a great believer that the children of today and the children of tomorrow after giving them a society of everything they need, universities and schools and roads and transportation and health and everything else, they should assume a certain amount of responsibility in the future. Now we have here $500 almost for the very same thing. My first question is. How this $500 will be spent? What is the program for it? And whether it is absolutely necessary in view of the fact that we have other important sections which this money could be spent.

So I feel that probably it will be necessary for the Minister to give us, if he remembers, a little bit of the history for the past and how will this money and for what purpose it will be used? MR. HUTTON: Is the· Honourable Member for Inkster, Mr. Chairman, saying $500 or $7,500.00? MR. GRAY: Five Hundred Thousand. MR. HUTTON. Oh, the Five Hundred Thousand? MR. GRAY: Before it was $750, OOO -- I'm sorry I can't count money but it was $750 thousand laid aside every year by the gentlemen to my right which I have objected at the time. MR.

HUTTON: I never heard of any $750, OOO being laid aside -- (Interjection) -- Well I'll tell you what the $500,000 is for. The Faculty of Agriculture at the University of Manitoba carries out a great deal of research for agriculture and this research, the primary beneficiar ies of this research are the farmers of Manitoba, and for this reason every year we, in this Legislature, vote monies in support of the research program at the University in the Faculty of Agriculture.

We also vote them capital funds each year in order that they can provide them selves with the buildings and facilities, research facilities which are required. I might say on this subject that the new Animal Science Building is going to be opened next fall and I do hope that all the members that are able will avail themselves the opportunity to visit the university campus at that time and see the facilities that this assembly has provided, because they are indeed imposing and they are extremely useful and are doing a tremendous job in keeping our farmers abreast of the times.

The $500 for specific research for the University of Manitoba is used for such things as improved varieties of the different grains, like wheat, barley, flax, oats, working on special crops, trying to improve the rapeseed varieties, the soybean varities, the varieties of vegetables -- the Premier says that's enough about that. And then the work on weed control, finding and testing new commercial chemicals that are brought on the market.

They've done a great deal of valuable work in the control of wild oats for instance; they've done a lot of valuable work in the control of leafy spurge, thistle -- any weed_s you can name. And, of course, in this day and age where we are trying to work out chemical weec\ control, a selective procedure where you use a chemical that will kill the weed but it won't harm the crops that you are trying to grow, it takes a great deal of experimentation and testing. And this is part of the work.

In the field of entomology they do a great deal of work in controlling the pests and in sects that the farmers have to cope with. In the field of animal science, we have provided them with new poultry research buildings. We've provided them with this beautiful new animal science building with all the latest equipment for experimenting in the breeding and the produc tion of not only better animals but more profitable animals; in the field of nutrition in feeding animals so that we get the most profit out of our feeding programs in the Province of Manitoba. It's this type of thing. Page 1944 April 17th, 1962

(Mr. Hutton, cont'd.) ..•.. And then some of these monies go to support the home economics

section of the Faculty of.Agriculture; go for equipment and so forth for this faculty. And, of course, it's from this faculty that we draw the majority of our recruits to the Home Economics service in the pro vince. And then in general research here we are asking for $32, OOO this year; $7, 500 will go to the proposed Agricultural Economics Research Council for Canada. Now this organiza tion is going to put a new emphasis on the problems of economics and sociology as it affects the rural life of Canadians. This has been an area that we feel has been neglected for many years.

Only four cents out of every dollar spent in agricultural research has been spent in the area of economics and sociology -- rural sociology. In the future we want greater em phasis upon these economic problems; on the problems of marketing our fal'.m produce; or the social problems that face the rural community in an age of adjustment, and these are the monies. Part of these monies in the $32, OOO are going to support our efforts to increase in terest in the small fruits industry in Manitoba. We've got a man now working full time pro moting the growing of strawberries, raspberries, crabapples.

We grow the best crabapples in the North American Continent right here in Manitoba, and jf we can get a sufficient volume for them we can find a commercial market for them, and this means jobs and income for Manitobans. Also, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that we can grow eating apples in the Province of Manitoba -- extremely good eating apples. And we intend to get a few experi- mental orchards set out. · Well, and on tobacco -- there's something in here for tobacco. But I wouid just like to say a word on tobacco.

I don't want to run the prospects of growing tobacco down, but you know we have to work against the forces of nature here. There are thousands of acres in Ontario and in the Maritimes where nature complements the growing of tobacco, and here we have to work against these forces of nature. We have a very short frost-free season here in Manitoba and it's sort of like kicking against the .... . .. trying to grow tobacco here in Manitoba.

We have to do a great deal of research to develop a plant -- a tobacco plant -- that is climatized; that is early maturing to the extent that we have as good an opportunity of getting a paying crop here in this province as they do in Ontario and in the Martimes. · MR. PAULLEY: ....•.. Mr. Chairman, ..••.••. may interject on a note of tobacco that we should follow the advice of the British Medical Society and cut it all out, including the one I'm about to light. MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, I wish to apologize to the Mi nister because I misunder-· stood the item. Just a moment now. I'm always willing to confess, Mr.

Premier, and, of course, if I would have all the brains in the world I probably would be sitting there. The point is, I took it as economic research on everything and not on agriculture. If you would have worded the estimates right and say for agricultural research, probably even I would have un- ,, derstood what it is, but you put economic research. Economic research may be everything. May be pensions for the members of the Legislature, may be anything. But while I made a mistake, I'm very happy I did it because I've got something from the lV.Jnister which I did not know. MR. CHAIRMAN: 8 -- passed. 9 -- passed.

MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, I see there's only $1, OOO allocated in this parti cular department. Surely the program of the government is going to cost more than $1, OOO, isn •t it? MR. HUTTON: It costs about $800, OOO -- (Interjection) -- Well, no one can anticipate what the cost of such a program would be. Last year they ran well over $700, OOO approaching. They may in the end approach $800, OOO. 00. We can't anticipate what might be needed. We may have a very favourable year. They tell me it's raining in western Manitoba. We should be throwing our hats in the air.

If such a thing develops this year that we have a favourable year and we have two or three timely rains let us hope that a program such as we had this past year isn't needed. We know for sure if it isn't needed our farmers are a lot better off than if it is needed. It is put in here as a token figure. MR. CHAIRMAN: 9 -- passed. 10 -- MR. J.P. TANCHAK (Emerson): Mr. Chairman, on assistance to farmers re fodder. I like the Minister's attitude. He's quite brief and I think if we keep on that way we'll be April 17th, 1962 Page 1945

(Mr. Tanchak, cont'd.) ..... through in no time. And I'll try to be brief myself. I could sug gest an assistance policy to the Honourable Minister whereby it would not cost the province a single cent, and it would certainly help the farmers quite a bit, especially the farmers along the International Boundary. If the Minister really put his shoulder to the wheel, I think we'll get some results. I know that this matter is really federal -- I brought this up in the House before -- and this is this ma tter of tariff, or duty of $1. 06 on hay brought in from the United States into Manitoba.

I did ask the Minister previously, last week, about it. He said that he took it up with the Minister in Ottawa -- and I believe him. But I think that he should make a special effort this effort this time to really get results. Maybe in his estimation it isn't of great significance but to the people who are along the Internation:J,l Boundary, it means an aw ful lot. There are hundreds of farmers who have been buying hay from across the line all winter and now with the lateness of the spring they're continuing to draw hay from across the line.

They feel that Ottawa is not justified in not refunding this; and they also feel, as I told the Minister previously, that the Minister of Agriculture in Manitoba -- the Honourable Minis ter to whom I'm speaking -- did in a way promise to do his utmost to see that this was refunded. Now I wouldn't press the Minister to do this but I feel that the present MP representing this area, Mr. Jorgenson, and the constituents feel the same way as I do, that he has let down the people along the International Boundary, let them down very badly. They have taken it up - with him; they didn't get any results.

In fact, they did not even -- some of them complained that they didn't even get a reply. Therefore, since the people have no representative in Ot tawa, I'm sure that the Minister would agree that it is his duty to speak up for the farmers who purchased that hay and see that this $1. 06 per ton is refunded to the farmers.

I know that the MP representing that area previously did work for the farmer, but lately, since he has become the Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa, he seemed to have changed his views; and since we have no representation as far as MP is concerned, I would plead with the Minister to intervene on behalf of the farmers because this means an awful lot to them. One farmer last Saturday, came up to me and said: "What have you done about it?" I told him, I spoke to the Minister; I spoke in the Hous e. The Minister promised that he will try, and he did, and will try again.

But I couldn't promise them a refund and they're concerned. He said that it cost him almost $100. 00 already paying that, and I don't think that when we here in Manitoba, the provincial government, is trying to help out the farmers -- and I give them credit for that -- I don't think it is fair that the federal government on the other hand should take or grab from the farmers; they should assist also, not only in the freight and so on. The Minister told me that the ramifications are so great in this, that it's pretty difficult to make that refund.

I don't think anything is impossible if really one puts his shoulder to the wheel and I plead with the Minister to look into this further. MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 10 -- passed. MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, I read with considerable interest an account of a speech the Minister made on Tuesday, December 12th, while addressing the Agriculture Bill of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce.

At that time, and this is what the report says: "Agriculture Minister George Hutton has ruled out any expansion in the Manitoba Crop Insur ance program unless the federal government comes up with a better method of backing it." It goes on to say that "Unless the federal government makes changes in its Crop Insurance Act, all western provinces, not just Manitoba, could not provide sound crop insurance" the Minister said; and states further, "In Manitoba another bad crop year could bring losses as high as $30 million. 11 I won't read the whole story but it goes along in this theme that crop in surance is not possible in Manitoba unless we get a better deal from Ottawa on the sharing of the cost.

I recall speaking on this subject about two years ago and made the same remarks that I didn't think that this crop insurance could operate in Manitoba because of the way it was being financed. I went on to say that I didn't think that we'd have crop insurance in the province for a good long time unless something was done and the Minister substantiates this here by saying that it's impossible unless there was a change in the financing.

I don1t profess to be an expert in crop insurance but I have studied the matter and discussed the matter with a lot of people who know a great deal more about crop insurance than I did and it was on the basis of my dis cussions with them on crop insurance that I spoke on it in this House. I recall, too well, how Page 1946 April 17th, 1962

(Mr. Guttormson, cont'd.) ...•. the Minister took me-to task for my observations at that time, saying that it could operate ani would operate under the present scheme and that I had no business talking that way, that I was just knocking the plan. Well, Mr. Chairman, when I read this story I thought he had read my speech because he says practically identically every thing that I said in the House a few years ago. Does the Minister have any hopes now that we can have crop insurance in Manitoba in the next few years? MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr.

Chairman, we have not received to this date and I suppose we will not receive until about this time next year the financial picture of the crop insurance plan for the year just passed, for 1962. But we do have before us contained in the annual re port for tb.e year ending March 31st, the financial report for the year ending March 31st, 1961 on pages 138 and 139 of the annual report, and I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask as regards the financial statement on Page 139. If my honourable friend has it in front of him, Page 139 of the annual report.

The figure at the bottom of the page, $168,529.07 represents the expenses to this government, I understand, so that in order to get the actual expenses you would have to double that amount, is that correct? -- (Interjec tion) -- Well then how -- it shows amount recoverable from the Government of Canada -- oh, and Manitoba, pardon me; so that the $168 thousand represents the actual expense and half of that of course would be the cost to Manitoba and half of it would represent the cost to the federal government. Well, Mr.

Chairman, when you're comparing the actual cost of operating the plan you must always compare it to the premiums paid by the farmers, because as I said last year, surely it doesn't cost any money to get the premium, the 20% premium from Ottawa, that doesn't cost anything but a five cent stamp perhaps. So that when you're comparing the actual cost of operation you must always compare it to the amount of premium that's paid by the farmer.

I m_L1st say once again, as I said before, in examining the two pages here, that's Page 138 and 139, where it shows the actual money paid by the farmer as slightly more than a quarter of a million and operating expenses of "$168 thousand some odd, that it's completely out of all proportion and I suggest as some of the honourable members have that it will remain so, unless the federal government change their grant structure, because there isn't too much encouragement to cut down on the operating expenses if somebody else is going to pay 50% of them.

I know that in my own operating expenses I wouldn't be as careful as I am if somebody else was going to pay half of the bill -- and that's exactly what they're doing in this case. So I think the grant structure should be reversed; that it would be much to our advantage and certainly to the advantages of the farmers to have the federal government pay 50% of the pre miums and 20% of the administration costs and we'd have a much, much better picture ·than is presented before us on this page.

And inasmuch as the operating expenses, totaling $168 thousand some odd, is in effect paid by all of the farmers of this province, through their various taxes, then isn't it a fact that farmers that are not in the test areas are subsidizing those farmers that are in the test areas? MR. CAMPBELL: Mr.

Chairman, when I spoke earlier I mentioned that we would be asking the Minister for a statement that would bring both of these items, 10 and 11, up-to date, because as the member who just spoke has mentioned, we have the statements for the year before, but nothing for this year, and I think it would be only right that the Minister should put on record the experience of this past year for both of these big organizations. Jn addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I notice that in the list of civil servants that is supplied to us, that the personnel of these two corporations were not included.

I take it that they are civil servants are they not now'? And would it not be right to have the number of employees in these two corporations listed with the rest? Could the Minister give us those now so that we could include th em? And would he bring up to date the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation state ment at this time and then the same with the Agricultural Credit Corporation when that item is reached. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, speaking to Item 10 only.

If the Minister is going to make a statement such as the last speaker requested, I would ask him to attempt to include in that statement information as to the differential between the amount of premiums collected in the last year and the amount paid out in claims. And secondly, was any money borrowed from the federal government under this program? If so, how much and what was the interest rate? April 17th, 1962 Page 1947

MR. HUTTON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to reply first to the Honourable Member for St. George and assure him that I didn't establish the present policy on the basis of the speech he made two years ago; but as I recall his statement of two years ago, he attacked the pro gram, not because of the provisions for financing disastrous crop losses, but on the basis of the contribution by the federal government to the premiums paid by the farmers -- or pre mium required under the program to offset the liabilities.

Now what has happened in our ex perience is that we have run into a bad year at the very outset, and I want to explain to my honourable friend that if you take the experience of the past 35 years and you put all the bad years at the start, you'll end up about $15 million in the red; but if you were to put all the good years at the start and put the years of bad experience at the end you would end up with something like $50 million of a surplus.

Now had the program continued to enjoy a surplus we might have continued to extend it; but having run into this experience in the second year and having to pay out indemnities of $1, 585, 644, and without having had time to establish any kind of a reserve, it becomes evident that we can't continue to expand the program until there is a more suitable rre thod to Manitoba of financing this type of loss. We want the federal govern ment to share the risk that is involved of heavy losses in the early stages of the program.

If we were sure that these losses would not occur until say a third of the way through or half the way through then we could proceed, because we are convinced that in the over-all picture the program is sound, actuarily sound; but it's to protect the province in the initial stages of the program that we are requesting and urging Ottawa to effect changes in their legislation which will permit them to assist the provinces in financing these losses that can occur. And what we have proposed is that they should share the risk with us and in return for that we should pay them an annual premium.

Now it may well be that our experience may not be repeated and that they may be money ahead; but it may be, on the other hand, that our experiences will not be favourable and in the early stages of the program they will have to share the res- , ponsibility for financing. We don't ask them to finance all of it by any means. The provinces have a responsibility here and especially in a program that is administered provincially, the only way you can really keep the provinces honest is to make sure they do have a responsibility in the financing.

But we do think that the feder.al government should share with us in this risk. This has nothing to do with premiums. Now, the Honourable Member for Gladstone takes great delight in comparing the ad ministration of the crop insurance program in Manitoba to the administration costs in his own office. I think he would more correctly compare the cost of administration in the office of one of our district supervisors to the costs in his own office, rather than try to compare the - MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege, I never mentioned a word of my oi.Vn office at this session of the Legislature.

I did last year, but I never did this year. MR. HUTTON: Well, we'll wait for Hansard. MR. SHOEMAKER: All right. MR. HUTTON: The cost of administering the program this past year were $209, 438. 61 and when they're compared, taken as a percentage of the total income of the Crop Insurance Corporation, which is the only legitimate comparison that you can make to the operations of any line company, they represent 28% of the total premium income of the corporation; and in com parison the Co-operative Hail Insurance Company administration. expenses vary from 26% to 33%.

So if we can use this as a valid comparison then our administration costs are well within line with other companies in a similar field. But I would ask the members to remember that we are in an absolutely new field, and that included in these costs are costs of research of a nature that no line company ever thought of getting into. As a matter of fact no line company is interested in crop insurance. The only reason that the government is in there is because we're trying to work out a program, a protection for farmers that isn't available from any other source.

So I think that on the question of the efficiency of the administration on the basis of the information that I have here, the comparison of costs between the provincial program and a program such as The Co-operative Hail Insurance Company, I think our program has a good record. Now I would like to just for the benefit of the Member for Lakeside, I'd like to go over the program for 1961. A total of 9, 200 insurable farmers were offered crop insurance; 44. 2% of these bought crop insurance in 1961. This amounted to 3, 675 f,armers as compared to 2, 500 Page 1948 April 17th, 1962

(Mr. Hutton, cont'd.) ••..• in the previous year. An insurable farmer is one who operates land within a test area and who plants 10 acres or more of insurable crops. The total acreage covered by insurance was 505, 895 acres in 1961 as compared to 332, OOO acres the previous year. The program was carried out in five test areas comprised of 28 municipalities in 1961, and this compared with four test areas and 14 1/2 municipalities in 1960. The total liability in 1961 was 6. 7 million as compared to 4.1 million in 1960.

The farmer's share of the premium in 1961 was $435,016.36 as compared to $255,487.33 the previous year. The total number of claims paid in 1961 --2, 185, as compared to 175 the previous year. The total of indemnity payments in 1961, $1, 585, 644 as compared to $87, 082. 62 in the previous year. The average claim in 1.961 was $730,31 as compared to $506.29 the previous year. For your information the average claim in Manitoba under PFAA in 19§1, $320. 00.

Now the question of arrears in the payment of premiums was raised here and l•m happy to tell you that the amount outstanding for both years at the present time is . 6 of 1% of the premium --$1, 387. 48 from 1960 and $2, 621.14 from 1961, that is as of March 30th. I think I have something more up-to-date but I doubt if I can find it at the present time.

I know you'll be happy to know that the program to date with two weeks to go before the deadline for application we have more farmers signed up than we had last year within the same test areas and we expect that a substantially higher percentage of the farmers, we think that possibly 50% or more of the farmers in the test areas will avail themselves of crop insurance. So it appears that it is a highly acceptable program.

I just hope that the federal government will respond to the proposal that we have made; I feel quite confident that they will because it's a sound proposal and that we will be able to extend this program to the rest of Manitoba in the very near future. MR. CAMPBELL : Mr.: Chairman, I take it that there is no extension as far as areas are concerned this year? The same areas? I appreciate the figures that the Minister has given us, Mr. Chairman, and he has given them quite fully as far as the costs are concerned, administration and insurance. Might l ask him if all claims are paid up-to-date?

I suppose they're all in by this time of the year. Well then, the other question, Mr. Chairman, I don't think he gave us the receipts under the plan in 161, did he? .•.. •••. from the contribution of the federal government, etcetera .. MR. HUTTON: Well the contribution of the federal government will be 25% of $435, 016 and 50% of the administration costs which are $215, 500. 00. · MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, I think if the Minister rereads all my remarks he'll find that I not only spoke about the premiums but of the possibility of a disaster if we did have a drought as we did have last year.

Is it not true then that if the federal government fails to change the present cost-sharing formula that the Crop Insurance Plan in Manitoba will not go into operation over the entire province? MR. HUTTON: That's looking a long way ahead. MR. SCHREYER: ..... •.... still on crop insurance. I asked the Minister to tell me what amount was borrowed from the federal government to cover losses here and what the in terest rate was. If he has that information I would appreciate having it. Secondly, I wonder if I'm far out in assuming that the federal contribution premium-wise last year was about $80, OOO.

Is that correct? MR. HUTTON: Over a hundred. Pardon? MR. SCHREYER: I'm speaking about premiums, not administration. MR. HUTTON: The premiums would be over $100, OOO. 00. It would be one-quarter of $435,000.00. MR. SCHREYER: What about the --I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Was any loan made of the federal government by the agency? MR. HUTTON: Yes. MR. SCHREYER: How much? MR. HUTTON: It was in excess of $400, OOO. 00.

The way the loan is determined - I haven't the figures here, but you take your total indemnities and you subtract from that the total premium receivable, the reserves that you have, $200, OOO deductible, and then the federal government lends you 75% of the remainder that you are in arrears .. --(Interjection) -- MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, in regard to my question whether we'll have crop April 17th, 1962 Page 1949

(Mr. Guttormson, cont'd.) •..•• insurance or not, the Minister replies that that's a long way off. But this is rather a change of policy, isn't it? Weren't the people of Manitoba promised that there would be crop insurance and now the Minister leaves us with a rather indefinite an swer that there may not be crop insurance now. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the Minister answered my question as to whether all claims were paid. I assume that they are by the fact that he didn't say anything.

And the figures that we have it would be correct to say would it, in round figures that the total payments, administration and indemnity, would be something in the neighbourhood of $1, 800, OOO. 00? And that the total receipts would be something in the neighbourhood of $650, OOO. 00? Would that be about right? MR. HUTTON: The total indemnities were $1, 800, OOO. 00. MR. CAMPBELL: The indemnities, I think, the Minister gave as $1, 585, OOO, and then there were $215, OOO. 00. MR. HUTTON: Oh yes, oh yes. MR.

CAMPBELL: About $1, 800, OOO would be right for the total currerit cost of the scheme and around $650, OOO for the receipts. MR. HUTTON: Yes. MR. SHEWMAN: Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to commend the Crop Insurance Corporation. The men that are handling this corporation, my experience has been they're doing a wonderful job. And when you talk to other people, other than farmers, they're quite happy to see that we have the crop insurance scheme started in Manitoba.

I can remember a few years ago when we were bringing forth resolutions to have the crop insurance set up in Manitoba that the Leader of the House at that time told us that it would be an impossibility for the Province of Manitoba tO go it alone. But I will say this -- (Inter jection) -- What's the honourable member saying? . Why? Now that's a brilliant question. You'd expect an answer like that from one that didn't know the history of the crop insurance story -- that's just the kind of question you'd expect from the Honourable Member from St. George.

That even in the House at this time he would be backing the present government on account of what his Leader at that time, the Leader of the House, was saying -- that it would be an impossibility for the Manitoba Government to go it alone. And this government had the courage to start the crop insurance scheme alone; and they're making a job of it.

There's no doubt in my mind that there Will be assistance, further assistance coming from the federal government at Ottawa because they know what good this can mean and what good it can do to the Province of Manitoba, or any province in western Canada that's growing grain. When the Honourable Member from Lakeside was leading the. House, the Premier of the Province at that time, he would tell us repeatedly that no province could go it alone.

Now because this government is making an effort -- and they're going to realize that effort, Ottawa will come in and we will have provincial-wide crop insurance -- we'll have it. -- (Interjection) -- I was listening to the Minister -- and I've been listening to you, much to my sorrow -- and all that we want is a little time, and we will have crop insurance 100% for the farmers of Manitoba. I would like to congratulate the boys in the Crop Insurance Corporation for doing the job that they're doing.

For any new scheme that's been set up in the Province. of Manitoba I think there's less beefing than there has be.en with any other plan that's been brought into being, as far as the crop insurance scheme is concerned. The boys are doing a good job and I wish them luck. If the members in the Opposition would only take a little bit of thought and a little bit of time, I know that crop insurance will be realized and be a benefit to all the farmers of Manitoba. MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Morris has made some very in teresting remarks.

He says that the previous government wouldn't put in crop insurance be cause they said it was impossible to go it alone. Well, now what has the Minister of Agricul ture and the present government said. Mr. Hutton has ruled out any expansion of crop insur ance in Manitoba unless the federal government comes in. This is what the previous govern ment said and we said it before. This plan won't operate unless you get federal aid. And the Minister of Agriculture said this; he made this statement -- he doesn't deny it tonight.

I asked him if the plan was going to go ahead and he said that's looking too far in the future. This is his remarks tonight. So, is crop insurance going into effect in Manitoba? We have Page 1950 April 17th, 1962

(Mr. Guttormson, cont'd.) ...•• some test areas, but we haven't got crop insurance and the Minister has led me to believe, and the House, by his remarks tonight, that we may not have it for a good long time unless some changes come about on the federal level. · MR. H.P. SHEWMAN (Morris): I've got to disagree with the Honourable Member from St. George. Possibly he should have studied the history of crop insurance; and the struggle that there was to get crop insurance in the province. It's here; and it's here to stay.

But if you want to defeat any good cause, just keep on talking and doing what the Opposition is doing, as far as defeating something that is worthy and worthwhile for the farmers of Manitoba. You keep on talking the way that you are talking and you'll just do that -- and y()U are doing it. But all we want is a little bit of time and it'll be here and it's hard for them to realize that that's a fact. MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Morris seems to have an awful time understanding his own Minister because the Minister there said we don't know when we'll have it.

He said it's. looking too far in the future to consider crop insurance. I don't know what language he's got to talk to make you understand. We haven't got crop insurance in Manitoba today; we have test areas. The greater portion of Manitoba today hasn't got crop insurance and the Minister said we're not going to expand this year either. And he said, we won't expand until we get federal aid; ·and if we don't get federal aid we don't get crop insur ance in Manitoba. This is the remarks of the Minister. MR.

CAMPBELL: Mr� Chairman, ..•.... matters outstanding still and I should thank the Honourable Member for Morris because as usual I was too modest to say that I told you so when this was going to happen. I didn't even mention that but the Honourable Member for Morris who is always more. than kind and generous where I'm concerned, has pointed out to the Minister and the House exactly what I said at the time before; and goodness, if I were proved that right, that quickly, on every occasion, I would be more than happy. So I do thank the Honourable Member for Morris for emphasizing this. I didn't care to.

I agree with the Honourable Member for Morris in another regard as well -- that there's no reason why we should desert this now that it's started. We do need more federal assistance in here. My honourable friend is hardly fair to the federal government when he says there's no assistance coming from them. There is some assistance coming to them -- this quarter of a premium. I don't think it's enough, but at least it's something. And the guarantee on the loan, on the excess amount of money, is something. He should give the federal government a little more credit. I know it's not enough. But, Mr.

Chairman, the one point that I'd still like to get is the number of people who are permanently employed. I'm not asking for those who act as agents in the country or anything of that kind but I would. like to get for the record as far as civil service appointments are concerned, how many we have on the record. And I don't have to ask for it in the next item, could we have it for it when we come there as well? MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Chairman, ..••• the Minister is looking for some inform ation, I would merely like to point out to the Member for Morris that when we in the Opposition -- I take it this would apply to the Member for St. George -- we 're not trying to put the plan in jeopardy, far from it. But instead we're pointing out as we were last year, at least I want to take this opportunity to point out, as I did last year, that there is something grieviously wrong with a scheme in which the ratio of provincial to federal participation is in the order of seven to one. Now just use simple arithmetic. Where's the fairness?

Where's the equity here, when the total cost in a scheme of somewhere around one million eight, including administra tion costs, the federal government contributes two hundred and ten thousand -- premiums about a hundred thousand, administration about a hundred thousand -- say two hundred thousand federal contribution in a plan that has cost a million eight. There's not even a vestige of fair ness in such an allocation of cost-sharing. And this is what we object to; and that's all there is to it. It's not that we're trying to put the concept of crop insurance in jeopardy. It's silly. MR. HU TTON: Mr.

Chairman, I've just got to speak to this one. I've never heard such outrageous calculations in my life, to suggest that the federal government should adjust its contribution on a year to year basis -- (Interjection) -- oh yes, you took the total losses in one year, the total indemnities paid out, and then he compares this to the contribution that the federal government makes in respect to the program in a given year. But the federal govern ment makes its contribution whether there are any indemnities to pay or not, every year. April 17th, 1962 Page 1951

(Mr. Hutt.on, cont'd. ) •.••. Every year they pay 50% of the administration costs, whether there are any liabilities incurred or not -- or indemnities have to be paid or not. You can't possibly evaluate the contribution of the federal government on the basis that my honourable friend from Brokenhead has just done. It's absolutely ridic ulous. I don't find any fault with the federal government on their contribution in respect of premiums and adminis tration . I think that their contribution is very real , very significant and fairly fair .

Oh there could be a matter of political jockeying here; maybe in the future somebody will offer us more; a greater contribution to premium s, and we'd like that. I'm not denying that, because it would ma ke it a lot easi er for us t.o sell. But this is not really the proper philosophy t.o follow, I think, in developing a program of crop insurance . We don't want t.o develop a welfare program. This isn't supposed t.o be a give-away thing. The contribution of the federal government needs t.o be sufficient to put crop insurance within reach of all the farmers and make it wort h· their while t.o take this protection.

And I believe that the present contributions in respect of pre miums and the cost of administration do make it worth their while. When you add the contri bution, both of administration costs and premiums it is a very significant contribution t.o the financial succes s. But where we do need help from the federal government is in respect of these losses that we can incur in the early years -- and here I'll go along with anybody who expresses dissatisfaction with the present provisio ns.

We have been after the federal govern ment for some two years now to alter their Act. to provide some alternat ive means of financing these losses that can occur -- and we will continue to press them . The Honourable Member for St. George says that I have made the statement that there will not be any crop insurance .in the Province of Manito ba unless the federal -- or any in crease -- unless the federal government goes along with us on this, and he equates this t.o the same circums tance that existed before we introduced crop insurance and he feels that it substantiate s his point of view.

Well I don't hold with that either . I take the middle of the road on this . I believe that it has been extremely useful for Manitoba to blaze a trail in crop insuranc e. If it hadn't been for Manitoba we wouldn't be getting off the ground at all. We had t.o show the federal government, to prove to them that they were wrong and we were right. We've got the evidence atrl we've got the proof today. We've strengthened our case and we, in Manitoba, will win the day for western farmers on crop insurance because of forging ahead and showing some initiative and a little bit of courage and going into it.

We didn't jeopardiz e the financial basis of the province by doing this . We went into it carefully, well considered, well prepared, having done a great deal of research; we went into it. And we've gotten a lot of information and this inform ation helps us not only to improve the program here in Manitoba, but it helps us to win our case at Ottawa . I can't accept the argument that equates our present position with that which was taken in the past by the previous administrati on. But Pm not going to criticiz e them for the stand that they took, because that's water under the bridge.

We've got crop insuranc e in Manitoba and chances are all in favour of us being able in the next year or two to expand it, to cover the province in total. In answer to the Honourable the Member for Lakeside in respect to any outsta nding accounts . I haven' t got that informat ion at hand. There may be a few, but I wouldn't want to make a statement one way or another. MR. CAMPBELL: .. •.•••• •. significant anyway, I take it. MR. HUTTON: No. MR. CAMPBELL: Has the Minister got the number of employees ? MR. HUTTON: No, I'm afraid that I don't. They may be here some place but I don't know where to look for it.

I'll try and get it for you though. If it's a matter of personal in terest I -- MR. CAMPBELL: If the Minister would get it, Mr. Chairman, I'd appreciate it, for both this one and Item 11. . . . . . • . • • • • Continued on next page Page 1952 April 17th, 1962

MR. FROESE: Mr . Chairman, on crop insurance . I think the Minister realizes and I pointed this out last year, that the farmers have to pay towards the Prairie Farm Assistance Ac�, if they do not subscribe to crop insurance in the test areas . And last year I think it was the case with many a farmer that he chose to contribute or to pay to the Manitoba Crop Insur ance Plan rather than to the PFA because this was a better plan than the PFA.

I have been sub sc ribing to the plan myself because when I work it out on the basis of the one percent of my proceeds, I find that I come very close to what the premium is that I pay out toward the Manit oba Crop Insurance Plan. One other point; the corp oration naturally would have a sizeable de ficit .

Is the corpora tion bor rowing and planning on taking over this deficit over the next couple of years and cover them by their future reserv es, or is the government making a contribution toward the corpo ration and are they setting it up as a capital item, because I see nothing under the item there that would cover this deficit. MR. SCHREYER: Mr .

Chairm an, I don't want to prolong this debate on crop insurance but I don't think that the Minister should take my statement so lightly, dism iss it as ridiculous, because I in turn could say that the argument he gave is in many respects overly defensive of the federal government and as such becomes quite silly.

I still say that a crop insurance scheme is not a good scheme if the province -- the people of the province -- have to undertake over $6 million in liabilities and the federal government's contribution is about $200, OOO. 00. · This is plainly ridiculous and it is in my opinion, unfair sharing of financial responsibility.

I pointed out last year and I say again, that in the United States, despite the different variable factors that enter into the pictUre, the crop insurance there in the midwest, the states south of us, the state governments are not asked to share any of the costs of crop insurance, and while I suppose we can't achieve those ends here in this country, I do believe that the Minister has to show to us more than he· has up to the prese nt time, that he is trying his utmost to get the federal government to share a larger portion of the cost of this scheme. MR.

HUTTON: I'd like to suggest that we take the Honourable Member for Brokenhead aside and give him a little lecture on the actuarial science . MR. FROESE : Mr. Chairman could we have an answer from the Minister how this defi cit is going to be handled? MR.

SHOEMAKER: I want to congratulate the department on the drive that they apparent ly have made to collect some of their outstanding accounts because I think that the Honourable Minister told us a few moments ago that the total outstanding unpaid premiums now was in the neighbourhood of $2 , OOO for 1961, and I have before me an Order for Return, No. 12, showing, and I quote: "The foregoing figures represen t the outstanding collections as at February 28th, 1962" and they total a little more than $14, OOO, so there must have been a concertec;l drive on to clean these up before the new year started, so I think the Minister or someone deserves some credit for reducing that figure .

And that brings me to another point, that I never did at any time in any department claim , as the Honourable Member for Morris suggested, that -- I think he used the words, "they were a good btmch of fellows ." Well cer tainly they're a good bunch of fellows, the people that are working, and any time that we on this side of the House complain under any of the estimates, it's on the administration -- the administration -- not the employees of the department. That's certainly as far as I'm concerned anyway. I direct my complaints to the Ministers . I still think, Mr.

Chairman, that there is something less than one farmer in 10 insured. Am I correct in assuming that? Something less than one out of 10 farmers in the pro vince insured -- pro bably one in nine or something like that. The last figure that I had, I think .· there was something like 49, OOO farmers in the province-rec ognized farmers. MR. HUTTON : Forty-two thousand permit books . MR. SHOEMAKER: Forty-two thousand and 3, 500 of them insured so it would still be about one in eleven or something like that, that's insured. Another question, Mr .

Chairman, on the premiums and I guess they're all premium notes; I don't know how many farm ers pay their premium for crop insurance in advance. I wonder if the Minister would explain to the committee the rate structure ; that is, comparing it to the hail insurance industry -- like the hail insurance industry establish a rate and then if you prefer to take it on the note plan they add on 15% and then if you pay it by December lst they take off eight -- I mean there's actually three rat es; there's the cash in advar,ce, there 's the note rate with a discount so in effect there are three different premium s.

I wonder if the Minister could explain to the committee the April 17th, 1962 Page 1953

(Mr. Shoemaker, cont'd. ) . . methods of paying premium s and the dis counts for same . Now another co mment, or a question, or both. When I heard the Honourable Member for -Rhineland referring to the -- or comparing the cost of crop insurance to PFAA , he mentioned that the premium for both was just about the same, or he found it so, and it seems to me that the method that the sa lesmen of the crop insurance plan used in the first two years of operation, was on thatbasis.

Theyw ould go toaf armer and say, "Now listen, if you sign up for this crop insur ance plan then you don't have to make your contribution to PFAA." 60 that was the basis it was sold on, and I suggest that is a very poor basis to sell anything on, which is the cheapest. It should be the advantages. Of course, after a year like last year they shouldn't have to use those tactics in selling the crop insurance plan to anybody. MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister give us the names of the direc tors of the Crop Insurance Corporation and salaries paid to the individual members? MR.

TANCHAK: I see that the Minister is motioning for me to get up . I didn 't intend to speak on this . I was just talking to the member behind but since he -- oh, well, I'll say a few words now since he has called me out . I'm not prepared either . I'm not going' to criticize the neces sity of the crop insuran ce ; I believe that it is necessa ry; in fact I'm going to commend the government for their courage in trying to go it alone, but now we notice that they find out they cannot go it alone .

As far as crop insuranc e, I dare the Minister to come to Emerson and tell him that Manitoba has a crop insur ance, and I disagree with the Honourable Member from Mor ris when he comes in and he says "We have a crop insurance in Manitoba ." We haven't got it . We have a few test are as, but it doesn't cover, it probably covers about 4% of the farm popula tion, or maybe I'm wrorig in that -- I'll take it back -- about 10% of the total area of Manitoba -- about 10% I presume, no more -- test areas.

So we have no crop insurance in the Province of Manitoba and I feel that Manitoba in its usual eager-beaver boy sc out manner accepted the federal proposal and the federal government is getting the best deal out of this program . The Minister says that he is quite happy with the contribution that Ottawa makes, 20 or 25% of the premiums to the farmers . I don't think the farmers are very happy with it.

I think the federal government should contribute more, but I suppose since the announcement lately today about the federal election, I suppose that it's quite in order for the Minister to flatter a little bit, to be kind of a little bit of a greaser of Ottawa and to uphold and cheer and agree automatically with what Ottawa does. A year, or two years ago, I thought that .the Honourable Minister was a pessimist.

I don't think probably he is a pessimist because he was before, but I think now I can apply the word, he 's a sycophant and I think if you look up in the dictionary you'll find it's kind of a "yes" man, a flatterer, a greaser, and that's exactly what to my impressio n that the Minister gave, he's flattering Ottawa probably for .a good purpose. They need a lot of flatter ing I im agine, but I think he 's more of a sycophant now than he is a pessimist . MR. HUTTON : Mr.

Chairm an, if I need to be a flatterer in respect of the government at Ottawa, I don't know what the honourable member's going to have to do in respect of the party tha,t he represents that's running federally. I thought he got up to talk about crop insura nce . On two occasi ons he has spoken this evening and he 's been making campa ign speeches . I can proba bly understand that . He 's a little bit worried about the chances of the federal member who happens to be his colleague here in the House.

I can well understand his concern and his efforts to put in as many plugs and as many digs as he possibly can and using every opportunity in estima tes to build himself a plat form to shoot at Ottawa. Well he can shoot at Ottawa all he likes. It makes no difference to me. I do think however, that it doesn't strengthen your argument ' at all when you're trying to get something from a government to be ridiculous and exaggerated in your requests and in your charges .

I believe that my chances of getting something from Ottawa are a great deal better if I state the case fairly and fight for that thing that I want, and I'm willing to fight for a better deal for financing disa strous losses, but I don't think that there's nearly as good a case for cri ticizing Ottawa in respect of their contribution:to premium s and the cost of the program . This isn't flattery at all.

This is just building a strong case and you destroy your argument complete ly if we were to follow the policy and the lead that is being given by the Liberals, because they've been crying "wolf, wolf, wolf" so long that nobody's going to pay any attention to them in this federal election . -- (Interjection) -- Yes, we'l l see --(Interjection)-- Nobody's going to pay any attention. The post offices are littered with envelopes --(Interjection) -- Yes, cheques going Page 1954 April 17th, 1962

(Mr . Hutton, cont'd .) • out to the farmers for this and that, cheques -- (Interjec- tion) -- No, not bribes, money that 's coming to them, as a result of the good administration in. agricultural policy in Cana da, and they'll speak louder than all the charges that my honour able friend from Emerso n can bring against the government, either here or Ottawa. I'd like to give some information to the Honourable Member for Lakeside in respect to the employees in the two depart ments .

In respect to crop insurance, the number of perm anent employees are 13 and with respect to the Credit Corpora tion the number of employees is 23, and I am informed by my assistants that there are only two unpaid crop insurance indemnity acco unts •. MR. CAMP BE LL: Thank you very much . MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chai rman, did the Minister overlook my question about the director s? Could he give me that answer please? I asked you awhile ago before the Member for Emerso n spoke, who the directors were and the am ount paid to them . MR.

HUTTON: I haven't got their salary information here, I don't think, but the direc tors resp ectively of Crop Insurance and Credit corpo ration are Mr . Percy Ford and the Man aging Director of the Credit Co rporation is Mr . Lorne Leggat. MR. GUTTORMSON: There are some others that are directors though, appointed by the government, aren't there on the • · • . • MR. HUTTON: Oh, you were thinking of the Board? MR. GUTTORMSON: Pardon? Yes, that 's right . MR. HUTTON: Oh ! The Crop Insurance Board is ma de up of Dr . Clay Gillson of the University who is Chairman of the Board; Mr. Ralph Redlin, Mr .

Jim Patterson and Mr. Vern Falloon. And in, respect of the Credit Corporation, there is Mr. Lorne Leggat, Dr . Bell, Mr . Usick, Mr. Cecil Durston, and Mr. Jack Parker, I believe of Soils and Crops . MR. GUTTORMSON: .... the amounts paid to these gentlemen, especially those out- . side of the departm ent? I'm not referring to the civil servants . The ones that are appointed from outside . · MR. HUTTON: •.. you're speaking of the boards , they are paid a per diem allow- ance for their services on the board. I'm not just sure of the am ount .

In respect of the Crop Insurance Board, I believe it is -- I'd rather not give that figure until I' ve had an opportunity - MR. GUTTORMSON: I won't press the Minister for it now . Will he undertake to give it to me, send it to me by note tomorrow or some time after he's had an opp ortunity to check it up ? MR . HUTTON: Yes, that will be fine. . MR. SCHREYER: I must apologize for asking this question again . The Minister may have inadvertently omitted telling me, giving me the information .

I asked him the interest rate that was being paid by the agency in monies borrowed from the federal government in order to make up the loss. MR. HUTTON: Five percent. MR. FROESE : Mr. Chairm an, I still wou ld like to know how the deficit that the Crop Insurance Corpor ation will have as a result of last year's operation , how is it going to be covered? Will it have to come from future reserves or is the provincial government going to make a contribution? MR. HUTTON: Well we just finished pass ing a bill in the House which perm itted the re serve fund to be extended to $2 million.

It was originally $500, 000 .00. MR. CHAIRM AN : .•.. passed? MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr . Chairman, I would just like to ask the Minister if I have per miss ion to ask him · a question which does not have anything to do with crop insurance and I may be in error for not raising it sooner. And that was regarding branding. I don't know where I should have raised this point. Maybe I should have raised it on the Minister's salary . Has the Minister any objection to me raising this question? I have farm ers in my area compla ining about •...• MR.

CHAIR MAN : •....• Crop Insurance Corpora tion now; can't we settle this mat ter? We're not dealing with that now . MR. GUTTORMSON: Yes, I just asked the Minister for permissi on to raise this point. I .. April 17th, 1962 Page 1955

MR.· CHAIRMAN: On this item ? MR. GUTTORMSON : Yes, he gave me the permission to do so . -- (Interject ion) - Well , if you don't mind because I can only just stand up once -- but I'll be very brief. There has been some loss of cattle believed due to rustling, and some of the farmers are paying a fee to the government for registered brands . I believe it is $2 . 00 for every 3 years, is this cor rect? What protection does the government give the se farmers for this $2 . 00 that they pay for the branding fee? ' MR.

HUTTON: This is why we have brought in the amendment to the Animal Husbandry Act to ma ke it compuls ory to register all brands , because at the pres ent time a ma n could be branding and have his brand registered; som ebody else could be branding with the same brand and there's no way of - - it isn 't against the law. It isn't too effective a way of identifying at the pres ent tim e, but we have just now today given third reading to a bill which ma de it com pulsory and which should give more protection to the individual who is branding . MR. CHAIRMAN: 10 passed? 11 passed? MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr .

Chairman, on this number 11, on the Manitoba: Agricultur al Credit Corporation, the Minister has told the benefits of this plan to the young farmers and I suppose there are ma ny that are benfitting from it, but I'm sorry to say that in my area and the area of the Member for Fisher and the Honourable Minister of Health are not getting the benefit from this plan that we'd like to see .

In my area, and I think it's a reas onably close count, there are only 20 farmers in the whole of my constituency have loans from this parti cular corporation and I understand there 's only about 31 in the combined areas of Fisher and Gimli . That gives you an idea.just how the present plan is drafted, that it is not of any benefit, or very, very little benefit to the people in our area. I would like to suggest the Minister re consider- that cattle be considered as secur ity .

As in the pres ent set-u p, ' as he well knows , much of the land is sub-marginal and as a result the farmers in the area just can't benefit on the plan as the prese nt regulati ons are drafted. MR. SHOE MAKER: Mr. Chairman, I wonde r if the Minister would be good enough to kind of bring us up-to-date for the year 1962 on this item ; that is, the number of applications; numb er of loans, and so on.

It is true that we have before us the annual report for the year ending March 31, 1961, but it must have changed considera bly since that time and it shouldn't take too long to give us briefly enough informa tion to bring us up-to-da te .

Now in examining the Item 11, if you subtract the two figures that are shown there, that is, if you subtract from the $875, OOO debt servicing charge the amount recoverable from the Manit oba Agricultural Credit Corporation, you have a figure of something like $415, OOO, and I suppose that that would represent the actual cost of operating the corporation including the loss in inte rest money - that is, I suppose it costs more then -- it costs more to borrow the money than it is loaned to the farmers -- so that the actual cost to the province ·o f opera ting the corporation is expected to be $415, 500 . 00 .

Now the report that we have , which is not up-to-date , suggests that in 1961 they loaned around $5 million , and about $5 million the year before, for a total of approxi ma tely $10 million; so in effect is it proper to say that it cost $415, 500 to carry the $10 million in loans , because if that is so it seems to be out of line with the Farm Credit Corporation. We also have before us the annual report for the Farm Credit Corporation for the year ending March 31, 1961, and the year before they handled $60 million .

On Page 20 of the Farm Credit Corporation report they show that they handled $60, 704, 050 in loans, and the inte resting part of it is that they made a net profit of $202, OOO on $60 million in loans and my question is, did it cost the Manitoba Government $415, OOO to handle $10 million ? It would seem there is a great deal of discrepancy here . I would like to know what the answer is . MR . HUTTON : Mr. Chairman, I'll answer the last question first. There are a number of things that come into it .

Our volume of business is much less than the federal government , and then you have to take into account that you 're talking about the first two years of operation and this was during the period when we were lending out substantial am ounts of money, but the income from that money had not yet had time to accr ue to the corporation . This acco unts in a large me asure for the discrepancy. Too, we are subsidizing better than half at the present time of all the loans to the young farmers . This money is going out at four percent. The fed eral government is lending all its money at five perc ent .

In addition, the costs of operation or the costs of administration in those early years were constant, while again the income was not Page 1956 April 17th, 1962

(Mr. Hutton, cont'd .) • • • • accruing from the loa ns which were new an d which were pend ing in their first year. This I think accou nts for what appears to be rather a heavy subsidiza tion of the pro gram in the first two years. We have appro ved some $14, 596 , OOO worth of loa ns to date and we have paid out ove r 14 mil lio ns -- $14, 051, OOO to date. The loa ns, as I stated, appear to be going largely to the young farmers and they are getting the larger loans. From April lst to December 31st, 1961 there were 357 loa ns approv ed and of these 55. 5% were to young farme rs .

The amount appro ved was $4, 251, 779 and of this 56. 2% was to the young farmers . The average loa n for la st year to the age group 21 to 31, was $12, 063 and to the olde r group, $11, 718. 00. The. othe r day the Honourable Member for Neepawa-G ladstone was wondering why we had such a heavy demand on this pro gram in the initial stages and that the demand seems to have eased up .

Well, if you recall, there had been no revision at that time of the federal Farm Loa n progr am, and the loans that were available under the old pol icy were completely inade quate to prese nt day farmi ng requireme nts, and of course everybody that needed a loa n came to the pro vincial government. Well now this backlog has been clea ned up and the two bodies or two organiza tions are in the field and we see an easing up. I would certai nly hope that the demand for loans would not have conti nued at the rate that was set in the initial year of the op eration of the Credit Corp oration.

I think that we ca n take some satisfact ion out of the fact that we have met the needs of a great many people who did need loa ns and that there are fewer at this time seeking this fina ncing. Th ere was another poi nt that was raised in respect to the Credit Corp oration prog ram and that was the fact that there seemed to be more delay in the provi ncial pro gram tha n there was with respect to getti ng a loan appro ved through the federal corporati on .

If you check that repo rt of the federal Farm Credit Corp oration you will find that the age nts of the federal cor po ration ha ndled, on the average, 13 applica tions per person and in comparison our age nts ha ndled 100 per person, so that you would have to take into consideration I think, to make a fair comparison of our efficiency, the work-load that we are dema nding of ou r people. But then the Government of Manitoba stands for sou nd admi nistration and getting every cent's worth of value out of the dollar. MR. GUTTORMSON : Mr.

Chairman, has the Minister given any considerat ion to chang ing the pol icy regarding security so farmers on the Interlake ca n benefit from this pla n? MR. HUTTON: I'm sorry Mr . Chairma n, I didn't answer this question because it's one of major concern to me and to the depa rtme nt. Now we want a good beef industry in Manitoba ; we wa nt to see our cattle numbers increased.

We're going to, I think, be able to real ize this only if there is some provision made for credit that is desig ned to fit the cattle industry, and I submit to you that this will likely have to be a prog ram outside the pro visions of th� pres ent Ag ricultural Credit Ac t. It is true that in certain areas where you have in terms of the con ventional tradit ianal produ ction of agricultu re, you have la nds that are marginal or sub-mar ginal but-which are quite adequate for livestock; grazing and so for th.

It's true that these loa ns of the pro vincial government do no apply too well and it is true that the federal governme nt cre dit prog ram doesn't apply either. As a matter of fact I believe that the provi ncial pro gram is more helpful because under

Part I of the federal Credit Ac t, only land ca n be taken as security, while under our pro gram , for all borrowers, we co nsider 65% of the land and the chattels and so ou rs is mo re helpfu l, but it still isn't adequate to_ the prog ram or to the need that my hon ou rable friend from St. George is speaking of, and it is my ambition that we are able to work out a pro gram that will apply specifically to the beef industry and give us the fina ncial means of realizing the increa ses in the population -� the cat tle popul ation -- that we want to see in the next decade in Manitoba .

However, there are many real problems in relation to such a pro - gram. - Tt is a very difficult thi ng to administe r. You see, land can't get up and walk away, but a cow can. A cow can get sick and die . Your security isn't nearly as sound for intermediate term credit. Now there 's no problem in fina ncing -- in short term financing -- of feed or cattle . We have a tre mendous prog ram in Manitoba . We're showing increases every yea r. I believe a year ago there was about one-third increase in the number of cattle on feed in Manit oba and even this past year there was another 25% increase .

The Manitoba Pool Elevators have a wonderful prog ram in respect to pro mo ting the feeding of cattle here in Manitoba. They had, I believe, some 20, OOO cat tle out on feed this past year. Now this is an April 17th, 1962 Page 1957

(Mr. Hutton, cont'd. ) ..••• extremely valuable program . We have had quite a number of large fe ed lots es tablished in Manitoba of recent date and we are quite encouraged. Of course we see this movement as being a real boon to the Province of Manitoba. There are many people better qualified than I who claim that Manitoba can be the iowa of western Canada and anybody that's driven through Iowa and contemplates that we could have the concentration and the intensive type of agriculture that they have there , would look forward to such a circum stance coming about in this province .

There is money available for this. It is easy to finance a feed lot or a feeding operation because it's only a matter of a year and you realize your return. The banks do a good job in this field, and as I said, the Manitoba Pool Elevators have a large and growing program under way.

But where the diff iculty is is in establishing a basic herd or adding to a herd and buying brood cows because here you have to have time to pay this back; you can't. do it in a year; you need to get several calves from a cow if you're going to be able to repay this money, and this is intermediate credit and this is where the need lies . I recognize it, I acknowledge it, and we're working on it. MR. PREFONTAlliE: Mr. Chairman, the answer just given by the Minister to the Member for St. (}eorge surprises me a little bit.

Some two weeks ago I had the honour and the pleasure to go to a banquet at the Royal Alexandra Hotel where my friend, the Minister, made a very good speech, and I thought I had heard him say that he was contemplating such .a program. I thought that he was positive in his statements and I was expecting that the Minister at this coming session would announce such a program, after having listened to him very caref ully at the Royal Alexandra Hotel.

I wonder if I made a mistake or if the Minister has changed his mind or if something has happened in between, from that time until today, so that the program has not since been announced, and apparently it will not be an nounced before the sessi on is over. MR. HUTTON: That's right, but I'm still determined. MR. PREF ONTAINE: For next year. MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, in view of the lack of interest on the part of the government members, I move the com mittee rise. MR. CHAffiMAN: Order. MR. LYON: My honourable friend - MR. MOLGAT: It's not debatable ..... MR. LYON: My honourable fri end, Mr.

Chairman has ...•• MR. MOLGAT: It's not debatable, Mr. Chairman. MR. LYON: .••.• attempted to raise this point before. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I suggest this is not debatable . MR. LYON: And I want to suggest to you, Mr. Chairman ..•• MR. MOLGAT: It's not debatable Mr. Chairman . It makes no diff erence what he wants to say, Mr. Chairm an. MR. LYON: I want to suggest, Mr. Chairman that my honourable friend has attempted to raise this point before • • • • • • MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Chairman, I submit that the Attorney-General of this House is out of order and you as Chairman are supposed to call him out of order and not sit there . MR. LYON: Mr •. Chairman, if my honourable friend would become less agitated per- haps I can say what I have to say. MR. MOLGAT: Well, if you'd follow the rules. MR. LYON: As I unde rstand it, I believe the honourable MR. CHAIRMAN : Order ! Are you ••... that motion yet? MR. MOLGAT: But Mr. Chairman, the member moved the motion . MR. CHAIRMAN : Oh, the member, I ...• MR.

MOLGAT: You did nothing at all about calling the Attorney-General to order and that's your responsibility. Sir, I submit that you are not following your responsibility as the Chairman of this committee. Because he's the Attorney-General of this government gives him no privileges in this House. MR. CHAIRMAN: I mistook it ••.. MR. MOLGAT: There's no mistake, Mr. Chairman . MR. CHAIBMAN : I thought you were the one that moved it and not the member for St. George . Page 1958 April 17th, 1962

l\'IR . MOLGAT: You knew very well what was going on. You let my honourable friend do that long enough for his whip to go out and operate and you know it. . MR. LYON: Mr . Chairman, I suggest on a point of order that my honourable friend is being most impudent -- most impudent . MR. MOLGAT: You are . MR . LYON: To the chairman of this House -- (Interjection) -- and unless he behaves himself he's going to be cited. He's going to be cited unless he behaves himself. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman you can cite me if you like.

If this is the way the rules of this House are going to be operated, I will be happy to be cited at any time and if the Attor ney-General thinks that he and his cabinet ministers are going to determine the rules of this committee and of this Ho use, then I suggest that if that's the way the government is going to be operated, they can operate it by themselves . My honourable friend smiles; he thinks he's smart now; he 's done what he wanted to do. Fine, but he nevertheless broke the rules of the House in order to do it . MR. LYON : Mr . Speaker I'm awflllly sorry, continuing on the point of order •.• MR.

CHAIRMAN : I think that the member was quite in order to rise on the point oforder. MR. MOLGAT: There is no point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN : We didn't know what he was debating . He rose on a point of order. MR. MOLGAT: What was the point of order? MR. CHAIRMAN : Well we don't know •••• MR . LYON : What is the question before the House, Mr. Chairman? Did my honoi1rable friend ask that the com mittee rise? --(Interje ction) -- Has my honourable friend moved it properly? MR. GUTTORl\'.ISON: Yes and you know it. MR. LYON : If my honourable friend wishes to put the question, Mr. Chairman, let him go ahead. l\'IR.

GUTTORl\'ISON: Mr . Chairman, you've broken the rules of this House and there's no point in me doing it now. MR. LYON: You keep that up and you won't be in the House. :MR. GUTTORMSON : You go ahead and throw me out. You haven't got the guts to try it. MR. CHAIRMAN : Order I Order ! Order I MR. GUTTORMSON : •••.•• and you broke the rules of this House . MR. LYON: Sorry your ••.••• has been destroyed. MR. GUTTORMSON : You try and cite me. MR. CHAIRMAN : Order I MR. GUTTORMSON : I'm not taking orders from you. You didn't calf him to order when you should have .

It's just about time that you • • . • . • in this House . MR. LYON: Sir, nobody has to take guff from a person like that. MR . GUTTORl\'ISON: Go ahead. MR. LYON: And I suggest Sir that if he doesn't behave himself like a member of this House should, that he should be asked to leave the House. MR. GUTTORl\'ISON : You just tell me to leave the House . You just broke the rules and • • • . • You spoke awhile ago and you had no right to speak and you knew it. MR. LYON: Sit down and stop being a schoolboy. MR. GUTTORMSON : Don't you tell me what to do . MR. MOLGA T: Is it the intention, Mr .

Chairman, to continue operating the rules of this committee for the advantage of the government or is it the intention to continue operating the rules of this committee in the proper fashion for the House. MR . CHAIRMAN : Order ! MR. CAMP BE LL: What's the point of order now? MR. SCHREYER: Is there a point of order on the floor? --(Interje ction)-- I don't think so. Therefore why wasn't the question put? MR. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I arose to ascertain what the honourable member's question was, whether he was moving, whether it was properly seconded and so on .

Now if you, Sir, are satisfied that the question was properly before the House , the question can be put . MR. CHAIRMAN : All right, Item 11 passed? April 17th, 1962 Page 1959

MR. CAMPBE LL: Mr . Chairman, after that little interlude now, we kind of interrupted the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, I believe . Has the Minister given us what might be called a financial statement of the operation of the Manitoba Credit Corporation -- the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation -- for the year just ended? I notice there is no statement in the annual report. Could the Minister bring us up-to-date on this one as he did on the other one? I realize that the situation is somewhat different but could he give us the financial report for the year 1961? MR.

HUTTON : Are you referring to the annual report for the year ended 1961 or the year ended 1962? MR . CAMPBELL: '61 . MR. HUTTON : Was that report not tabled? MR. CAMPBELL '61 is already in the annual report. MR. HUTTON : I haven't an up-to-date statement outside of the MR. CAMPBELL: Was there one tabled subsequent to that? MR. HUTTON : No. For the end of 1961, yes, but the anniversary of the' . MR. CAMPBE LL: There was one to the end of '61. MR. HUTTON : Yes, it was tabled, but I haven't any further • MR. CAMPBELL: I'll get that one then. MR. HUTTON : Fine! MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr .

Chairman, has there been a number of the staff laid off since July 3rd, 1959, because on that date the then Minister of Agriculture said that suffice to say that we have approved these loans -- and he's referring to the number that had been approved at that time -- and to continue , suffice to say that they can inspect 30 farms a day with this present staff that they have . Can they still accomplish that feat? Can they appraise 30 farms a day? Because I think my honourable friend said that the number of appraisals averaged about 100 per appraiser as compared to about 13 or 14 by the Farm Credit.

Well if that is so then there shouldn't be a backlog very long once the frost has got out of the ground. If they can do 30 a day they should be caught up by the 24th of May and be waiting around for new applications to come in. MR. HUTTON : Well I think that's a little bit optimistic to expect an appraiser to do three a day. MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr. Chairman, 30 a day is what is quoted here in the •... MR. HUTTON : Well I think - - I can't speak for the former Minister of Agriculture. I would speculate that be wa,s referring to the entire staff, not to a single man.

How ever I think that even at that he may have been referring to the fact that they could go out and make an inspection of the buildings, but these appraisers od more than just make an appraisal of the land and take soil tests and so forth.· They investigate the selling price of land in the district. They also check on the financial rating of the individual and I doubt that they can carry out three of these in a day.

I know that in difficult cases where individuals apply for a loan and they're ma rginal cases, I know for a fact that they spend a great deal more than one day or three, days trying to establish the qualification of the individual for a loan. MR. CHAIRMAN: 12 passed? MR. PREFONTAINE : I would like to ask the Minister whether the increase is with re - spect to predator control or with respect to grasshopper control . MR. HUTTON : Grasshopper. MR. PREFONTAINE : May I take it that the policy has been changed, or do you expect with the same policy to have to spend more money? MR. HUTTON : •. •••.•..•. MR.

PREFONTAINE: No, no . I want to know that before I carry on. MR. CHAIRMAN : .•.• passed? MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, we had a very interesting thing happen in our history. We acquired a tartan for ourselves and now we have another Manitoba first. I see in the Agriculture Research and Experimentation Report that Manitoba has now developed a fly trap -- very inter esting. It's very simply constructed and it says here that they have trapped as many as 5, OOO horseflies in a day, and it says that the flies are attracted to a glossy black or a red steer hang ing in this tripod -- I now know, Mr .

Chairman, why, when I go swimming with my red trunks, Page 1960 April 17t h , 1962

(Mr. Wright, cont'd.) . • possibly the shape; or the contour, probably attracts them, because they. certainly bite me . Ho.weve r, Mr. Chairman, what I really wanted to ask is : if this is the wonderful inven tion it is -- and I believe it is -- will the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources install them in such resorts as Falcon Lake for the benefit of people such as myself? MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Honourable the Minister whether the plan has been changed, or the contributions to the farmers has been changed, increased, this year or not? MR. HUTTON: Yes, there have been some changes .

There was a change in respect to the ma ximum amount that the government would contribute with respect to a quarter section. If the farmer is using malatlµon or sevin or one of the non-residual sprays , we will contribute up to $60 . 00 rather than the $30 . 00 that we contribute for such insecticides or chemicals such as This is being done to encourage and help the farmers, who are dairy farmers, either in the production of milk or cream , to use the chemicals where there is no danger of a residue being left on grazing or hay land that is being put up for fodder.

In addition, last year we ma de a change in the policy with respect to drainage ditches •. We contribute 50% of the cost and, of course, in respect to road allowances, abandoned road allowances, where the munici pality feels they must carry out a control program, we contribute 25 percent. And then, of course, we anticipate here that we may have a larger program on our hands than •••• MR. PREFONTAINE: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to thank the Minister for this informa tion because I was very much concerned with the plan last year, exactly on the points that the Minister has mentioned, and I'm saying now !hat the Minister that even this increase from $30. 00 to $60 . 00 is not enough _in consideration of the fact that when a dairy farmer has to use ma lathion to treat a quarter

section of land, he has to spend $30 . 00 because it costs $2 ; 00 an acre to use mala thion and it was the only poison that was allowed to be used in our district last year . The dairy .. . on hay land and on pasture land, where dairy cows are pastured. And I re., peat that it cost the farmer in our area if he hasoa-_whole quarter

section in either hay or pasture for the dairy cows, it will cost him $320 . 00 for the quarter

section and he was last year getting only $30 , 00 back -- that was the maximum .

Whereas if other farmers -- there are a few others in our area -- could use Deldrin they would get up to $30 . 00; the whole expenditure might be $32 , 00, $35. 00, depending if they used all of it. It would cost 30 cents an acre, $48 . 00 for the quarter section. The $30, 00 was a justifiable contribution, up to $30 . 00 . But now even up to $60. 00 for these dairy farmers is not enough. It's still prohibitive and I don't think that the dairy farmer can afford to spray with malathion at the present time even if he gets up to $6 0. 00 back from the government.

I would like to see the plan a little more generous becaµse it costs ten times as much money per acre to use mal athion than it costs to use deldrin. So I would ask the Minister to make it generous enough that it can be used; that it will be used. And there's another point. I would like to say to the Minister that the municipalities should n"ot have to pay. It's not the fault of the municipalities that there are grasshoppers - more in some municipalities than in others -- and the municipalities have such a burden than I don't know if they should pay anything at all.

At least they shouldn't pay with the government on a 50-50 basis . I read not a long time ago, and here I would like to state to the House that I have no brief for the Government of Saskatchewan, but the Minister of Agriculture of Saskatchewan announced that he had found, that he was hopeful that they would develop a new poison or spray to be used on pastures for dairy cows, and on hay land, and he hoped that it would cost not much more than deldrin or aldrin. I haven't seen new development since that, I had cut it out to read it in this House but I can't find my clipping.

I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture in this province knows of this new poison, or new spragy, that can be used on those hay lands and pastures . And again I would repeat, that if the Minister wants the farmers, the dairy farmers to poison the grasshoppers he will have to increase his contribution to $100. 00 per acre, because it will cost up to $320 . 00 per acre and that is providing malathion does not increase in price . And I say that the situation largely in our area meant that the dairy farmers were not spraying be cause the cost was prohibitive. I know I discussed it often with the ag rep down our way.

He said that representation had been made to the Minister; that he hoped that the policy would be changed, and this is why, Mr. Chairman, that before speaking I asked the Minister whether the April 17th, 1962 Page 1961

(Mr . Prefontaine, cont' d.) ••• , policy had been changed or not? I'm glad it has been changed to a certain extent and I would urge that it should be changed again, upwards · in order that these farmers should be able to destroy the grassh oppers, because we're going to have plenty -- it looks very bad down our way, MR. HUTTON: Well, Mr . Chairman, I'm glad to be informed that in order for a Conser vative Government to justify its position in office it must be at least -- no, it must be more than twice as good as a Liberal Government, because, Mr .

Chairman, the policy of the former gov ernment was to give a maximum of $30. 00; the present government recognizing the need that existed has doubled the contribution in respect of malathion and sevin. SeVin costs about half, I believe, of what malathion costs to apply. It's a new ch:emical -- it's just out -- and we hope that the farmers will make use of the cheaper chemical. But the $60. 00 represents twice as much assistance as was available last year and I think under the circumstances it represents some honest effort on the part of the government and the department to meet the need as it arises.

I'm not denying the fact that it costs a great deal to combat grassh oppers on pastures where there may be a need to spray the entire pasture, but I would also remind the committee, Mr. Chairman, that it isn't always necess ary to spray an entire field; that it is not leaving the correct impression to say that on the basis of the cost as given by the honourable member, that it is necess arily going to cost the farmer $320 . 00 to protect every quarter

section because un - der normal conditions you don't have to spray an entire quarter section. The hoppers tend to, by habit, lay their eggs in headlands and they can be combatted by timely application of the in secticide; they can be combated with a much lesser figure than was given by the honourable member . You don't need to spend $320. 00, and this year they're not going to have to spend $320 . 00 because there's going to be an alternative chemical available to them . Manitoba1s program has been every bit as economical for our farmers to undertake as has Saskatchewan's .

Saskatchewan, as you know, has a policy of buying.out the chemical companies and then they turn around and they sell this chemical to the farmers . Well, the pattern of price in the chemi cal business, or the tendency for the price of chemicals has been to go down with the increased use and volume production -- the cost of all the chemicals, whether they be 2, 4D, or M-C-T, weed control, or even the new wild oat control .chemicals such as carbine -- what's the other one -- Avadex.

All these prices are going down each year, and as a result of the Saskatchewan program they're caught with large stocks on hand at old prices, and the farmers in many cases, all too often have to pay higher prices than they would ordinarily have to pay. Under our pro gram we contribute . Under our program we contribute to the current costs that reflect the real cost of these insecticides at the time, so that we feel that our program has been, if not at least as economical, it has been more economical .to our farmers .

So --(Interjection) -- I know, even at $60 . 00 it may not be all that we would like to do but there ·are limits to what we can do and we feel that this is indeed a marked improvement inJhe program . MR. PREFONTAINE: :The Minister started by saying that this government was much more generous, I believe, than the previous government. The previous government contributed up to $30 .00. That might be so1 but there was no malathion when we had grassh oppers in the old days . It was a different situation; we were using sawdust and other materials .

Times have changed -- the .Minister should know it -- conditions are not the same . He's living in the old days all the time and tries to compare the situation now. This is a new stuff -- malathion -- we didn't have it in those days. We could use the stuff we had, we were using aldern and deldrfu in the last year or two before it changed. There was nobody telling us that we could not use it because of our dairy cows . Sometimes it was found that it would be dangerous and there was a prohibition against the use of ••.••. in our area and . alde:cin •• and diadun.

Now when the Minister compares what was going on when the scientists had not discovered that these were dangerous, we could use the cheap stuff but now we can't and I say that makes a lot of the difference. MR. CHAlRMAN: 12 passed. MR. CAMPBE LL: Mr. Chairman, with regard to Item 12, I understand by what I see in some of the farm papers that a fairly seriously severe outbreak can be expected in some areas . No bout the department is prepared for it, but if the predator control portion of this vote re mains approximately the same size as a year ago, it would leave only about $40, OOO for the gras shopper portion.

Does the Minister think that that is sufficient •••.• ? Page 1962 April 17th, 1962

MR. HUTTON : I don't know, nobody knows . MR. CAMPBELL: No, nobody knows, but still you have pretty good advance knowledge of -- this is one thing that I have found in our experience, that the experts in this area are re markably accurate in pin-pointing almost the exact points of serious infestation and I would think that from what I have seen -- Has the Minister the map with him? MR . HUTTON : No, I haven't . MR. CAMPBE LL: I believe there are some considerable areas this year that are ex pected to be heavily infested -- is that not right? MR. HUTTON : Yes, there are .

But I would say that it all depends on the weather. If we have e,ctensive June rains , or we should have a cold wet spring -- and it could happen be cause it's pretty difficult to anticipate just what the weather may be -- the danger won't mater ialize •. If the worst comes to worst, and we have a very grave outbreak, any reaso nable in crease in anticipation of this wouldn't suffice anyway, and we would have to rely on an emer gency program to meet it.

But we feel that in view of the threat and taking into consideration the uncertainty of the conditions that will prevail during the hatch period, that this is a reason able amount to put in. MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 12 passed. Item 15 passed. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman� I'm not going to get into my usual debate with my hon ourable friend, the Mi nister of Agriculture, in respec t of the Red River floodway -- (Interjec tion) -- Now who is coaxing who?

But, I was glad though, I believe it was yesterday or the day before -- now I think the Committee will agree that I didn 1t enter into the debate with my hon ourable friend on his ministe r's salary, and reserved my comments to the items -- but I was very pleased the other day to hear that apparently the Honourable the Minister had had a change of thought in respect of the survey of the possi ble affects on the water levels in -- Oh, yes there was a change, Mr.

Chairman, because during the debate on the bill dealing with ground water wells, my honourable friend said, if I remember right, "How can we have policy if we don't know where we're going" with which I agree . That is firmly recorded in Hansard and on reading it, Mr. Chairman, it was quite amusing to hear that the Min ister of Agriculture of all people across the way there, admitted that the government did not have a policy.

I ass ure him, I assure him, that if the occasion arises that I have the opportunity of going into the Constitu ency of Rockwood, there may be some quotes from Hansard -- (Interjection)-- Oh, yes, the whole context. As a matter of fact, I suggest, Mr . Chairman, to my honourab_le friend, that he , if he's not already done so, reads the excerpts from Hansard, I'm sure that ha will find them most interest ing himself.

However, I was pleased to hear from him -- just yesterday believe it was or possi bly the day before -- that contrary to his remarks of the occasion that I I've been rafe rring to, that apparently that they are taking note of the depth of the we'lls so that if in the event of the lowering of the water table, the government will be in a position to make compensation and, if I recall correctly, the Minister said that that is the purpose of his depart ment checking on the levels of the water at the presen t time. Now as I said, Mr.

Chairman, I'm not going to go into a debate with my honourable friend as to the method of expropriation. I feel that my Honourable colleague for Brokenhead express ed our opinion very, very adequatel y the other day on the question of the approach -- the man ner of the app roach of expropriations in the general area; and how much the people in the gener al area resent the methods that have been used by the department, and I say quite justifiably so. However, sometime back, earlier in the ses sion, the Minister' informed roe that 89 settlements out of 180 agreements, I think, have been made .

I wonder if the Minister could indicate whethe r or not that there has been any more settlements made since that time ? That was, if I recall correctly, Mr. Chairman, about a month ago when he mentioned these 89 settlem ents . I'm won dering if the Minister has more up-to-date figures . And I must apologize to him, Mr. Chai rman, of the fact that I'm not going to get into a debate with roy honourable friend. Last year it was about a couple of hours . I'm sure he would be glad that we don •t persue it, at least this evening . MR. HUTTON: Mr. Chairm an, now 109 settlements have been paid out as of March 3lst .

There were 109 that have been paid out and nine more that were agreed, but were in process of being paid out, so that 's 118 . MR. PAULLEY: Mr . Chairman, if I may interject about a quarter of those ....•• . is that correct? April 17th, 1962 Page 1963

MR. HUTTON: Total number of files. are 408. I would just like to put this on record though because there has been so much said about the prices that we're paying on t:Qe floodway property . Of the 104 propertie s -- now it's 109 -- but at the time that we had paid out on 104, and keeping in mind, Mr. Chairman, that these are poor, old people who are anxious to make a settlement; and who are at a dis advantage; and we are taking advantage of them; and we're trying to establish a price, a low price, an unfair price , so that we can rook the remaining owners out of their rightful compensation.

Now keeping these things in mind, these people are old; that they're anxious to settle; that we're trying to establish a precedence, so that we can steal the rem aining properties, listen to this: paid and agreed 104 settlem ents; the cost of the land, an average of $269. 00 an acre . If you take the total disbursements and spread them over the acreage, that is, the buildings, the improvement, the compens ation for dislocation, for re location, for loss of income, the average price per acre that we're paying -- have paid so far - $469. 00 an acre . This is the precedent that we have set. MR.

PAULLEY: May I tell my honourable friend that some of the properties in the gen eral area in which he's referred to at $469. 00, including buildings, or $265. 00 per acre, parti cularly those areas just east of the City of Transcona, had they been used for sub-development would have been worth an excess of $1, OOO per acre . . MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Chairman, the Minister can't resist the temptation to twist words that I say here -- and he has succeeded again -- because while he makes much point about the ave:rage price that is being paid for land expropriated for the floodway, the bare fact of the matter is that the particular area I was referring to, namely, the Narol-Gonor area, cultivated land is selling for around $100 ,0 0 an acre . This is the point I made last week, and which I make again.

I asked the Mini ster then, and I ask him now, to tell me why the price differential be tween the price paid for the land in the Gonor-Narol area and the land bought by the federal government in the St. Andrews area, why the differential is so great? He didn't answer me then, and I don't doubt that he won't answer me now, but I still think that he should be given one more opportunity to explain this .

I have no doubt that the average price the Government of Manitoba is paying for floodway land will average out to som ewhere in the neighbourhood of $400. 00, but what has this got to do, what has this got to do with the prevailing price that they are paying to owners of land in the Gonor-Narol area.

I'd like to quote just one sentence from a news clip ping of April lOth, Free Press, "Farmers affected by the Floodway met at Transcons on the 9th of April, " and one of the farmers said this, and I quote: "It's a dead loss to sell cultivated land for the $90 . 00 an acre that the government offered me ." It appears then that it's not even $100 . 00 as I suggested, but let's say that the average for cultivated land, the government is paying in the Narol-Gonor area is $100. 00. How can the Minister explain to the satisfaction of the people there? And I ask him to explain it.

How does he explain that in the light of what the federal government paid for cultivated land in the St. ·Andrews a.rea? I really want an answer and I think he should give it to us now. Or else, I will have to go back to these pe ople and tell them that the government simply ref uses to give an intelligent rational answer • . \. MR. HUTTON: Mr.

Chairman, I would just like to point out to the Honourable Member for Brokenhead in respect to this disparity that he keeps talking about in respect to the land in the Gonor-Narol area· and the land on the other side of the river which was taken for the Satel lite airport, that he can't make any comparison , can't make any comparison . I know nothing of the thinking behind an organization that is responsible to another government.

I can only go by the best information and the best qualified people that we can get our hands on who tell me that the prices that they are offering are fair and are related to the market value of the lands in question . And you cannot use -- and the Honourable Member for Brokenhead knows this I'm sure -- that you cannot use a deal that was made under duress as any comparison for the pay ment that is made in respect of land ekpropriation by a level of government. You just can't do it. The courts won't recognize it because there are so many factors .

Just remember this that they have a different expropriation law than we have. I'd like to tell you of an instance that was br ought to my attention when the Province of Ontario, two organizations operating in the Province of Ontar io, but operating under two differ ent expropriation acts, were purchasing properties on opposite sides of the highway and the one property owner received much more than the other . --(Interje ction) -- I don't know, but I'm told that the case went to Court and the award was substantiated because in the one case they Page 1964 April 17th, 1962

(Mr. Hutton, cont'd) . .. • • had no right under that Act that they were working under to pay anymore monies. Now under our Act, our people must pay the owners of land a fair price - w�t a reasonable ma n, what a prudent man would pay to keep bis property rather than lose it is what their sup posed to pay. }:ou can't go by what a man says when you come to buy it; he'd put any price at all on bis property . So how do you establish what a man would pay to keep bis property rather than lose it?

You look around to see what land has been selling for, what other prudent and reasonable men have been taking in exchange for their property, and you establish by that method what is a fair ma rket value . And then here in Manitoba and under this particular program , we add 10% for forcible taking to ma ke sure that we're giving him enough. That's the way we arrive at it.

I think the other day the Honourable Member referred to those special cases which were investigated by a special apprai sal panel that was paid for by the provincial government so that these people could have some check to see if indeed we were giving them a fair price. And in two cases, when you added that 10% to the appraised value as arrived at by the Floodway Property Commi ttee, you had a price that was more generous than that arrived at by independent appraisers.

That 10% is in there to safeguard the person whose .properties are being expropri ated; that he is indeed getting a fair price, so even though the appraisal by the Property Com mittee was a little lower than that ma de by the independent apprai sal panel, when you added the 10% you had a more generous offer; and that's what the 10% is there for to make sure . I think that the honourable me mber will agree that the independent appraiser said that when apprai sers come within 10% you can't criticize the decision that they have arrived at -- that this is indeed a very small disparity .

And when the government adds to this a 10% bonus so that they can make sure that the owner is getting a fair price then I think that we can have some assurance that these people are getting a good deal. Beca use they're not only getting the 10%, they'r e getting compensation for damages and so forth on top of that, and I think that every reasonable preca ution has been taken to give a square deal to these people . MR. GRAY: There 1 s such a thing as pennywise and pound foolish.

I agree with the Minister or the government to try and save money for the province as much as possible, but on the other hand when you have a project that will cost close to $300 million, maybe less, I don •t know -- I think it will probably run higher by the time they get through -- and when you take away land or expropriate land from a settler who lived there for years, every tree, every bit of shrub, the land is dear to him , then there's no question of having an appraiser for putting the evaluation.

You're putting an evaluation on the land according to general assessment so to speak of a gene ral value , but you're not paying anything to the man who does not want to give up his farm . You're compelling him to do it by law . He is not anxious to leave it; everything is dear to him; he lived there for yea rs; his children have taken it over. In cases' of this kind I think perhaps that a strict measure of assessment with due resp;l et to the assessors, with due respect to the experts that you are empl oying ..• because after all you are employing them and they've got to do a job for you .

The man that you're expropriating the land is not employing him. So I think that perhaps if this would have been a small project that we have to expropriate a small amount of land for a better purpose I would probably agree with you, but in this case when you have a project of close to $300 million I don't think the government should bargain with him on the price.

Expropriate if you need it, I don't disagree with that; but at the same time I think, even if you have to choose others, even if you have to do it with some that have no value - I mean they have a commercial value, but not a personal value, not a sentimental value -- I think perhaps the government can say to these people : "Here now, you are complaining, you need the land, you want the land . We have taken it away from you .

What can we do for yo u?" And I think a few dollars or a few hundred dollars or a couple of thousand dollars you may pa y to those individuals, I think will be worthwhile to avoid dissatisfaction. I realize there are arguments •••• "how can we deal with one in one way, with another in another way? " He can. There's no discrimination. There are certain parcels of land on farms that are worth more, not in the commercial value, not at the assessment value , but it's worth more to the individual .

So for the government to say and take advantage -- first of all you take away bis livelihood; you take away bis home; you take away his homestead; you have to remove him somewhere else; he has to start life over again . He'll have to be another pioneer, dig the land and go somewhere else. With these people I think perhap s the government can withou� hurting them in April 17, 1962 . Page 1965

(Mr. Gray, cont'd) •••• a great way settle in a way that he would be sa tisfied. MR . SCHREYER: Mr . Chairm an, in addition to what my colleague from Inkster said I would like to say this. People aren't going to have very much confidence in the law, be it provincial or federal, when they see that as a result of the law they are receiving a price for their land that is completely inconsistent with the price offered for similar land just across the river . What a terrible thing to contemplate , but true . As a result of the law, they are re ceiving economic injustice, -- if that's pos sible to receive injustice.

Now I realize that the Minister isn't guilty of deliberate intent here . That isn't the problem ; that 's not what I'm criticizing him about . But I'm criticizing him for his failure last Spring to take the adv ice which was given him at the Municipal Co uncil Office in Springfield. At that time he, and I believe the Premier both were told that it would have to be a ma tter of policy, not land apprai sal, but a ma tter of governmen t policy to see that there would be no great differential in prices between provincial offers and the federal offer in the St. Andrews area. So they knew about that even then.

Interje ction . Oh yes you did -- MR . ROBLIN: Nonsen se . MR . SCHREYER: Oh, well, I believe that there were about 5 councillors there and two Reev es . MR . ROBLIN: We_ don't control federal policy and you know it. MR. SCHREYER: I said it was a ma tter of governm ent policy here to see to it - MR . ROBLIN: We're pay

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-5-71
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 5th hansardpdf 71.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	753947c4e4d3c1389a6590e99b1ac0c0e2f36851

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