LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday,6May, 1980 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PAA YER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Bir tle­ Russell): Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMI TTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Hono ur able Mem ber for Radisson. MR. ABE KOVANTS: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directed me to report same and ask leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Virden, report of Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MR.

SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ... INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before the Oral Questions, I would like to draw the honourable members' attention to the gallery on my right where we have 10 students of Grade 11 and 12 standing from Berens River under the direction of Mr. and Mrs. Paul Fiss. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Rupertsland. We also have 34 students from the Gimli High School under the direction of Mr. Michael Onyschuk.

This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Min ister of Educ ati on. On behalf of all the honourable members, we welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister of Finance confirm a report that he did in Flin Flon at a meeting ind icate that it was the intention of the provincial government to sell their interests back, insofar as the potash development was concerned in St. Lazare once the development was complete. MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho no urable Min ister of Finance. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr. Speaker, it's the first I've heard of it. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'll be forwarding to the Minister the press report that I made reference to. To the First Minister, in view of the fact that Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario Legislatures have had a da y set aside for deba te per taining to cons titutional change, has the First Mi ni ster reconsidered his earlier position that there would be no days set aside within the Manitoba Chamber for a similar type of debate as has taken place in our sister provinces? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. STERLING A. LYON (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, in order that I can answer my honourable friend accurately, is he talking about changes to the British North American Act or is he is talking about the Referendum Debate in Quebec. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding the deba tes have included not only the Referendum in Queb ec, but areas of de bate pertai ning to changes in The British North American Act and possible proposals that would be undertaken at the behest of Manitoba in that Act. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the clarification. My comment that has been made I think a number of times in the House is to the effect that there will be ample opportunity for discussions on changes to the Constitution as and when the Constitutional Debate resumes in Canada after the Prime Minister calls a meeting of the Premiers and the Attorneys-General and the other Ministers responsible. I look forward to that debate as much as my honourable friend and I can assure him that there will be ample opportunity for that kind of debate.

With respect to the Quebec Referendum, which trenches upon that matter to some extent, I would reiterate what was said earlier, that we will be engaging upon the Budget Debate some time next week and there will be ample opportunity for my honourable friend and for any of us for that matter to make comment on that debate before it takes place and undoub tedly after the Referendum takes place. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that discussion pertaining to this important and vital area of concern during the Budget Debate would intrude upon the opportunity that opposition enjoys to deal with the Budget proposals. Would the First Minister not consider some separate time set aside for strictly discussion within this Chamber as to whether or not there is a consensus pertaining to constitutional changes and most relevant discussion prior to the vote in Quebec? MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, without in any way wanting to be antagonistic about it, I would suggest with respect to my honourable friend that this is not the time, if he will ponder what I am about to say, this is not the time for provinces, with the greatest of respect, to be dealing in a detailed way with whether or not they would first of all accept, for instance, a 3295

Tuesday, 6 May, 1980 Bill of Rights with language entrenched in it, or matters of that sort, which could be taken and read, I would suggest, in perhaps an unfavourable way in the provin ce of Quebec, largely because such a debate at this stage, Sir, would be premature. Along with my honourable friend, I look forward to the Legislature having the fullest opportunity to debate that matter, and as I have ind icated before, Mr. Speaker, to have a Committee of the House that wou ld hear representations from the people of Manitoba as and when the constitutional discussions in Canada are resumed.

They are in a state of suspension at the present time awaiting the outcome of the Referendum on the 20th of May. Thereafter, presuming that the Referendum goes the way all of us in this Chamber would hope it would go, there will be a resumption of Constitutional Conferences. I would think it would then be not only right, it would be more than appropriate to have the Legislature debate the question and have a Committee of the Legislature hear representations from the people of Manitoba. That has always been the intention of the government, as and when constitutional discussions resume in Canada. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, just by a further sup plementary to the First Minister, is the First Minister then by inference suggesting that it was premature for the national leaders, Trudeau, Clark, Broad bent, provincial premiers, to have become involv ed in the di scussions and in the debate pertaining to the Quebec Referendum, that it would have been better for them to have left unsaid statements tha t they had made to this poin t pertaining to their relationship to Quebec in the event of a Yes or a No vote? MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I was afraid that my honourable friend didn't understand me and that's why I asked him at the beginning of his question to clarify which of the two topics he was questioning us about. It's indeed true that one trenches upon the other, but the Quebec Referendum qu estion is going to be decided on the 20th of May. The constitutional question that we are discussing is the one of the continuing constitutional dis cussions between the federal and the provincial governments in this country. They have been going on, as my honourable friend knows, for many many years.

It would be right and appropriate for those, when they are resumed, to be discussed in the fullest way in this Legislature, and by a committee, and that's what we intend to do. I was making no comment about other provincial premiers or national leaders who may have gone into the province of Quebec and talked about the referendum, the Oui or the Non question. What I was talking about was the inadvisability at this stage for Manitobans of whatever partisan stripe, that makes no difference, to be taking and setting firm positions with respect to constitutional negotiations which are in a state of abeyance.

That is my only comment; it was not meant to cast aspersions on anyone, including my honourable friend. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Municipal Affairs. HON. DOUG GOURLAY (Swan River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to complete an undertaking that I took from certain members opposite last week to announce the by-election dates for the L.G.D. of Alexander. Upon my instructions, the nomination day will be Wednesday, May 21, and elections will follow on Wednesday, June 11 , for the three vacancies. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask a supplementary to the Honourable Minister about his by-election. Does he then reinstate the other two members, whom he has suspended, concurrently with that announcement? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi nister of Municipal Affairs. MR. GOURLAY: As soon as there is a quorum, they would be reinstated, which would be election day, June 11 , I would expect. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for lnkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hono1.1rable First Minister, following up on the questions that were asked by the Leader of the Opposition who asked whether the First Minister thinks that the Prime Minister and other people should have left certain remarks unsaid.

May I ask the First Minister whether he would agree that it would have been better had the Prime Minister of this country left certain remarks unsaid, namely that Rene Levesque has not got the courage, because he has not behaved in a similar way to the Algerian uprising and to the Irish uprising in the 19th Century, and make it clear that although we don't respect Mr. Levesque's ideas, or at least we don't agree with them, tha t we don't di sparage his courage, having left a party which was the alternative and gone to a party with no seats and brought them to be the government of the province of Quebec? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, it has not been my habit or custom to make comments upon all statements of all Prime Ministers of Canada, and indeed I must say, for the benefit of my friend from lnkster, that I was not aware of that particular comment. Perhaps it was carried in the papers when I was visiting in the pristin e temperatures of Tho mpson, Ma nitoba yesterday, but I am not familiar with that statement.

I take my honourable friend at his word, however, when he quotes that statement, and I would say that if, indeed that kind of statement, which would be by implication and encouragement to civil disruption, if that statement were made, then indeed by anyone, that would beextremely regrettable. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct another question to the Honourable First Minister. Due to the fact that the MP in Manitoba in the federal Cabinet

Tuesday, 6 May, 1980 has indicated that rail line relocation would depend on allocation of other moneys which the provincial government receives to relocation, can the First Minister tell me whether he's going to take the federal moneys now advanced to health care, the post-secondary education to economic development, and re-allocate them to rail line relocation in order to preserve the sensitivities of the Me mber of Parliament for Fort Rouge? MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that there's a fair amount of hypothesis in what the Member for lnkster asks.

There is an equal amount of idiosy and foolishness, not in the qu estion, but in the suggestion, if indeed that suggestion is being made by anyone who should be as responsible as a federal Cabinet Minister, and I can assure my friend from lnkster, and indeed the people of Manitoba, that there would be no disposition whatsoever on the part of the government of Manitoba to participate in that kind of an idiotic saga in order to resurrect promises and expectations that obviously cannot be fulfilled. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for lnkster with a final supplementary. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

To the First Minister as a supplementary. Can the First Minister make it pla in to our Ottawa representatives, including the Member for Fort Rouge, that the people of Manitoba have no argument against rail line relocation, provided it does not further delay an access route to north Winnipeg such as the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass? MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I would have thought, and I'm confident in my own mind, that the Minister of Ur ban Affairs, speaking on behalf of the government, has made that position crystal clear on a number of occasions, both to the Mayor of the city of Winnipeg and to the different federal delegations he has dealt with on this matter.

Of course, no one is opposed to rail relocation, if the federal government, which has primary responsibility for such matters, can pony up the money to make that come about; and if the province and the municipality could then sit down and negotiate in a reasonable way, that, too, would be carried on.

It appearing to be the case, now, however, that the federal governm ent does not, and will not have sufficient moneys to carry out their responsibilities in this field, then I'm sure that this government, along with the citizens of Winnipeg, would hope that the city of Winnipeg can proceed with the best alternative approach in order to give service to the people living upon tha t corridor, something that they have been waiting for for a good, long time, and which they deserve. It's overdue. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. JUNE WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is addressed .

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for lnkster on a point of privilege. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Fort Rouge has correctly pointed out that I should have been referring to the previous Member for Fort Rouge, the now Member of Parliament for Fort Garry. I would not want to attribute to her the kinds of things that have happened with the Member for Fort Garry. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health on a point of privilege. HON. L. R. (Bud) SHERMAN: On the same point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the member being referred to is the Member of Parlia ment for Winnipeg Fort Garry.

He is not the Member for Fort Garry. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. WESTBURY: Well, I didn't have my nasty pills today, so perhaps we can get this back on the track a little bit , Mr. Speaker. My qu estion is addressed - I think, Mr. Speaker, the remarks are very interesting, and my question has to do with this.

My question is to the Minister of Urban Affairs, and I wondered why a Cabinet Minister was not able to represent this government at the citizens' meeting on railway relocation on Sunday afternoon, instead of a very amiable and very articulate backbencher who was not able to speak for the Cabinet at all? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. HON. GERALD W. J. MERCIER (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I had a very im portant personal engagement that afternoon, of which some members are aware, and I would be pleased to inform the Member for Fort Rouge later. MRS.

WESTBURY: A further question to the Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Does the Cabinet have a position, do they have a policy as regards to railway relocation, or as to the desirability for an overpass in lieu of a relocation? This House has not yet been told the government's position, and I think the citizens of Winnipeg would be most anxious to know what their preference is. MR. MERCIER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have had a consistent policy on rail relocation. What we are trying to determine is what degree, if any, of consistency do members of the Liberal Party have on this subject? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge with a final supplementary. MRS. WESTBURY: The Liberal Party is united in its recommendations, Mr. Sp eaker. I mean all members of the Liberal Party. Mr. Speaker, I do think I may be permitted to say that when I say members of the Liberal Party, I was not saying members of the Liberal Party who are elected to the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Speaker. I realize that they're all very jealous of the position that Mr. Axworthy finds himself in at the moment. Mr. Speaker, my further question is to the Minister of Urban Affairs. 3297

Tuesday,6 May, 1980 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Perhaps we could allow the honourable member the courtesy of the House. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. WESTBURY: Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Speaker. My final supple mentary is to the Minister of Urban Affairs. Will the Minister of Urban Affairs be meet ing with the Mayor and other representatives of the city of Winnipeg to develop a formal plan to be presented to the Transp ort Commission in accordance with requirements of The Relocation Act? This has not yet been done. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, when Mayor Norrie and I met with Mr. Pepin, Mr. Pepin ind icated, on behalf of himself and on behalf of Mr. Axworthy, that he would respond to us within a matter of days as to whether or not there was any possibility of any funding for rail relocation from any other source than the UTAP funds. To date we have not heard from him and I think it is incumbent on him and I am sure that he will follow through with that undertaking and advise us very shortly as to whether or not there are any additional moneys availablethrough the federal government for rail relocation. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge with a fourth question. MRS. WESTBURY: Mr. Speaker, is the Honourable Minister not aware that The Relocation Act provides tha t the Transport Commission can order a relocation subject to the federal gov ernment's willing ness to participate in requiring financia l participation by the railways as well? MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, I am perfectly aware of the requirements of The Rail Relocation Act, as our the city, requirements that, if they were followed through in fact to prepare a transportation plan, financial plan and development plan under that Act, would take some minimum of at least two years. That is why, Mr. Speaker, the city and the province sought assurances from the federal government as to whether or not they were prepared to make a specific financial commitment to rail relocation over and above UTAP funds. We have an answer from Mr.

Pepin that from his department there is no more money available other than UT AP funds. We do not have a final answer; we expect to get that answer, that Mr. Pepin undertook, within a matter of days. Mr. Speaker, the position of myself and the Mayor simply is that that commitment must be obtained before the whole transportation problem of the northern

section of this city is further delayed. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Honourable Attorney-General if he is now ready to report on his position regarding the banning of books for sale in retail coun ters withou t prosecution? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Not yet, Mr. Speaker, but I will be prepared to report to the member on Thursday. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of the Environment.

In respect to some confusion that has been created as a result of recent statements by the Mini ster in regard to the use of 2,4,5 -T in the province, can the Minister indicate a specific date as to when he will make a final and a firm decision as to whether his government is going to follow the lead of other governments in other enlightened jurisdictions and impose a ban on this hazardous substance for use in the province of Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of the Environment. MR. WARNER JORGENSON (Morris): No , Mr. Speaker, I cannot indicate a specific date at this time. MR.

COWAN: Can the Mini ster ind icate then if there is any spraying of 2,4,5 -T Ongoing currently in the province and can the Minister further clarify statements attributed to him to the effect that the danger posed by the chemical is reduced because it is being used in remote areas? In specific, are we to interpret that persons living in remote areas are more immune to the effects of this chemical, or are we to interpret that to mean that the chemical loses its hazardous properties when it leaves the urban environment? MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

May I suggest to the Hono urable Member for Churchill that the debate he is attempting to carry out here can better be carried out in Comm ittee of Su pply. If the honourable member wishes to modify his question, that's fine. MR. COWAN: Mr.

Speaker, the question is on the record and I would hope theMinister would answer it, but I will ask a third supplementary: In light of some confusion that has arisen as a result of the Minister being quoted as downplaying the health hazards associated with the use of 2,4,5 -T, and in recognition of the fact that the Minister does not intend to impose any immediate ban and cannot tell us as to when that ban would be imposed, if it would be imposed, can the Minister now categorically state in this House that he does not recommend the use of 2,4 ,5-T in this province and suggest to those persons that are using it that they immediately stop using it and do not import or purchase further supplies.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Again, I suggest to the honourable member - apparently he cannot hear what I was suggesting to him - that that type of debate is better carried out in Committee of Supply rather than in the Question Period. MR. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your advice, and would only point out to you that we have finished the Environment estimates in the Committee 3298

Tuesday, 6 May, 1980 of Supply and would hope that the Minister would take this opportunity to inform the public as to what he intends to do, and his government's opinions as to the health hazards associated with the use of 2,4,5 -T in the province, that being, to my way of thinking, a very important issue that confronts all of us presently. I would hope that the Minister would answer and I would hope that you would give him the opportunity to do so, as he seems willing to do so. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono ur ab le Mini ster of Consumer Affairs. MR. JORGENSON: Mr.

Speaker, I cannot add anything further to what I have already told my hono urable friend in the Comm ittee of Su pply yesterday. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Minister of Highways whether he has received a communication from the Minister of the Environment request ing whether his department has in stock 2, 4, 5-T, or are the y continuing with tenders for stocks of 2,4,5 -T to be sprayed on roadways in the province of Manitoba, or is he prepared to take the lead before his colleague and listen to his colleague's earlier remarks that we will not use this prod uct since there was a controversy, and the Minister agreed that there was a controversy about the product and initially stated that he was going to ban it and now he has changed his mind. MR.

SPEAKER: The Hono urable Min ister of Highways. HON. DON ORCHARD (Pembina): I don't quite know which question to ans wer. Yes, I have received a communique from the Minister of the department. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What did the communic ation say, Mr. Speaker, could the Minister ind icate, and what does he intend to do in terms of the specifics of the communication? MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, the letter that was sent to my department was an internal document requesting certain information as to my department's use of 2,4 ,5-T. I have to ind icate to the Member for St.

George that I received that document. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George with a final supplementary. MR. UR USKI: Mr. Speaker, can the Mini ster indicate whether his department has ordered a new supply of 2,4,5 -T and is it his intention to continue the use of that product this year? MR. ORCHARD: Mr. Sp eaker, it is my unde rstanding that we have purchased acertain quantity some time ago of 2,4,5 -T. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Elmwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Urban Affairs.

In view of the remarks of the Minister of Immigration that certain provincial politicians are engaging in cheap politics, I wonder whether the Minister of Urban Affairs could confirm that at 60,000 per week for delay on the construction of the Sherbrook­ McGr egor Overpass, tha t it's the Mi nis ter of Immigration who is engaging in expensive politics. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, while I am on my feet, perhaps I can answer two questions placed by the Member for Wellington on Tuesday, April 15 with respect to a letter which appeared in the Letters to the Editor of the Winnip eg Free Press relative to sterilization procedures. Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is no. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mem ber for Elmwood. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, on a supplementary, I want to ask the Min ister of Community Services whether he will be atten ding the day care rally tonight, and I would also ask him whether he shares the view expressed by Norma McCormick, who is a well-known advocate and supp orter of day care services, that animals in the public pound have better rules and regulations that children in day care centres. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Community Services. HON. GEORGE MINAKER (St. James): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last question is no. The answer to the first question, Mr.

Speaker, is that I will be in the building at 7:30 this evening and I presume that I will have a chance to speak to the gathering that will be here. I would also like to draw to the attention of the honourable member, Mr. Speaker, that an invitation did go out to the executive of the coalition for day care to meet in my office at any time that was convenient to them, and to this date they have not accepted that invitation. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mem ber for Elmwood with a final supplementary. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I would also ask the Minister whether he has any intention of tightening up the regulations for unlicensed day care centres or so-called family day care centres? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Speaker, at the present time, I feel that the licensing method and the guaranteeing of equality, etc ., in the day care fac ilities are adequate. I will be giving consideration later on in the year when we deal with the guest home and group home licensing at that time, because the same regulations can and may apply to day care centres. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for Rossmere. 3299

Tuesday, 6 May, 1980 MR. VIC SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question for the Minister of Finance. We have asked him on several occasions to table the memorandums of agreement with respect to the mmmg developments at St. Lazare and Flin Flon. I am wondering whether he can do so today. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mi nis ter of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, I think at the time I was questioned on it, I did reply to the member that in the case of Flin Flon, that the best avenue forhim to pursue this is when the Manitoba Mineral Resources is before the Legislative Committee, when he can ask for all the information he may desire. I am sure that they will provide as much as they feel that they can at this particular time.

With regard to the potash development, I indicated there that essentially, again, what has taken place is that the assignment of the Crown-held leases in the area in question have been, for the period of exploration, made available to the IMC, and that the agreement that would be un dertaken following that would be the agreement which, of course, he would be interested in being apprised of. Since that hasn't taken place, there is really very little more that can be made to the member or to the House at this particular time. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, to the Mi ni ster of Fi nance: This prelimi nary agreement does apparently give this company the right to do the exploration . I am just wondering exactly what is contained in that agreement. For ins tance, has the government and the company agreed on any specific roya lities, any specific amounts for any specific amounts of time? Has the government agreed to that type of clause in this memorandum of agreement in order to induce the company to do the exploration work? Have you set any prices? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Min ister of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, I was asked a question on that just in the last couple of days, and I ind icated no, that those kinds of details have not been settled and are subject to the further negotiations that will take place as we develop the final feasibility study during 19 80. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, again to the Minister of Finance, I'm not sure I understand exactly why it is that that potash agreement cannot be tabled at this particular point in time. Is there something about that agreement which would be in the public interest for the public not to know about? MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, it might help the member to kno w tha t there never have been regulations ever formally promulgated with regard to potash, and those regulations, which would be the normal procedure that the government would go through in the issuing of an Order -in-Council covering them, would eventually come forth. Those will be public when they are finally dealt with by Order-in-Council through the Cabinet, so they will be public information.

But as I say, it may be helpful for him to kno w tha t there have not been formal regulations applied to potash as it has applied to oil and hard rock minerals, metallic minerals and so on. And that is still to come. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Rossmere with a fourth question. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you , Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister of Finance for informing us that public documents, Orders-in-Council and regulations will be made public. What I'm ask ing about is whether the agreement will be made public. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, the agreement referred to by the member, the formal agreement, is still to come. The only thing that has been done in any formal way at all is to indicate by Letter of Intent so the company could proceed with its exploration work, that the government would be issuing the regulations in the regular manner, and that they could feel secure in proceeding, on the basis of 2 million of investment and so on, whatever required to complete the studies, so that they could get started by May 15 th, and I trust that they are busy getting into the field at this time, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for The Pas. MR. RONALD McBRYDE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. To the Mini ster of Finance, lwonder if the Min ister then would ind icate, since he hasn't clearly said to the House, is the Minister willing to table the Letter of Int ent tha t he has in regard to the potash development? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, the entire contents of the L�tter of Intent have already been indicated by way of public statement by the government. There is nothing more to be issued. MR. McBRYDE: Then my question to the Minister is, could he explain to the House then, why he will not table that Letter of Intent? MR.

CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, having now answered this three or four times, if it will ease the member's pain, I think we should probably table the Letter of Intent. MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased that the Minister of Finance thinks that he should now table the Letter of Intent. My question to the Minister is, will the Minister table the Letter of Intent? MR. CRAIK: consideration. Mr. Speaker, I'll take it under MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. D. JAMES WALDING: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Honourable First Minister.

In view of the fact that Autopac paid a private auditing company 70,000 for auditing its books, is the First Minister satisfied that Manitoba drivers are receiving 3300

Tuesday, 6 May, 1980 economic and efficient service, in view of the fact that the provincial auditor did the same job for 38,000.00? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable First Minister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I'm satisfied, in this administration, as I think all other premiers across Canada are satisfied that having private audits by private auditing companies of public corporations is in the public interest. It was only when the bizarre took place, Mr. Speaker, when the NOP, under my honourable friends, from 196 9 to 1977, abolished such audits, that Manitoba became odd man out.

Mani toba again is following what all other jurisdictions have done in the public interest, and yes, it is in the public interest. MR. WALDING: A suppleme ntary ques tion, Mr. Speaker, and I believe the First Min ister should explain to the House what he considers bizarre about the provincial auditor's work. I will ask him as a supp lementary question whether he intends to reverse the government's policy by turning back the auditing to the provincial auditor and save the Manitoa driv ers 30,000 a year. Is he prepared to do that? MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, my use of the adjective bizarre was not attached to the provincial auditor. It was attached to my honourable friends opposite. Their tactics with respect to auditing practices were indeed bizarre, and no reflection whatsoever upon the provincial auditor, and he kno ws that. Mr. Speaker, what I am saying, my honourable friend from St. Vital is now concerned about saving the taxpayers of Manitoba 30,000.00. Would that he might have been more concerned about saving the taxpayers of Manitoba 40 million when he embarked upon the fiasco of Saunders Aircraft. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minis ter of Finance.

MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I had a question from the Member for St. Johns which he reminded me of yesterday, and perhaps I can indicate the answer to it. It was with regard to a particular tax discounter, and I want to ind icate to the member, and he was good enough to supply the name to me, for the investigation, that the RCMP was called into this matter approxima tely a yearago to investigate. Charges were laid in March of 19 80, and the matter is presently in the courts.

The party in question had received their 1980 licence to operate and that still stands, and of course is subject to the outcome of the court case, and that's about as much as I can tell the member at this time, except it is in the courts. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Honourable Minister. I would assume then, and I ask him, shall one assume then, that refunds have not been made by this person and will not be made unless there is a conviction of this?

But meanwhile, that person, tax discounter, is permitted to continue to operate his business as at the present time. MR. CRAIK: That's the information I'm provided with, Mr. Speaker, that that is the case. Until such time as the court gives its decision, his licence stands. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, I wanted to ask the Ho nourable First Min ister, rela ting to the questions he answered regarding the use of private auditors, whether he is now considering replacing the provincial auditor in his present function with private accounting auditors to carry out that job, which he thinks is better done by private auditors? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. LYON: No, Mr. Speaker. As in most things this government has had to do since assuming office in 19 77, we are returning the administration of public affairs to a normal state. They were abnormal before. MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mini ster of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could just finish off a reply to questions. There was a question also from the Member for The Pas regarding the employment picture in The Pas with regards to the temporary close-down of the sawmill portion of the ManFor operations. There were two questions. One was with regards to whether there is any evidence of tradesmen leaving The Pas.

As far as ManFor can determine there is not any problem that has arisen in that regard; and secondly whether any management were laid off during the shut down period, and I und erstand that the answer is no. There was a thir d quest ion earlier from the Me mber for St. Vital with regards to iron ore deposits in western Manitoba as to whether or not the government had an in volvement in the development of these or potential development of these deposits and the answer to that question is no. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for The Pas. MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Speaker, a question evolving from the Minister's answer.

There was another part to my question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister could report to us whether there has been any improvement in lumb er sales from the ManF or sawmill. And secondly, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Mini ster could inf orm us what functions the management people that have been kept on, since all other employees have been laid off, what function the middle and junior management people would be carrying on at this time since there is no one there for them to supervise now. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, with regards to the latter questions of the Member for The Pas, I think those are the kinds tha t should be di rected to the management when they are before the committee. As to whether or not the lumb er market has improved, as of a week ago or so there weren't any very positive signs of improvement and it is a fairly slow-moving scene because most of the sales are in 3301

Tuesday,6 May, 1980 the United States and the market is pretty slow as aresult of the housing slow down there. So the picture is not a particularly good one with regards to lumber although it remains good with regards to the pulp operation. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for The Pas with a final question. MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask more than one final question, but I'll put it into one final question.

I wonder if the Minister could tell us what, in his role as the Mi ni ster reporting for Manitoba Hydro, could tell us what stock of 2,4 ,5-T Manitoba Hydro has at this time, whether they've ordered and received any new supply of this dangerous chemical and, Mr. Speaker, what they intend to use it for this year and how extensive their use will be this year of this chemical. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, that question was taken as notice yesterday from the Member for Churchill. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, the time for question period having expired. The Honourable Government House Leader. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE MR.

MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, by agreement there's been a change in the order of estimates. The Department of Agriculture will begin outside the House this afternoon, as well the Department of Health will continue inside the House this afternoon. This evening only the Department of He alth 's estima tes will be un der consid era tion , and Agriculture will recontinue tomorrow or the next day. Mr. Speaker I move seconded, by the Minister of Government Services that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the Ho use resolve itself into a committee to consider of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, was prompted to enter this debate on grievances by some of the remarks that were made by the First Minister in answer to a question directed to him by my leader just a few short minutes ago. Mr. Speaker, I intend to make my remarks in French because I hope that these remarks will be - I want them to be heard by everyone and I hope understood. I believe, Sir, that we are facing one of the most important issues in this question of what's going to happen to Canada.

Is Canada going to stay un ited or is it going to be divided? Sir, there seems to be very little interest in this and especially in Engli sh Canada and ther e· is certai nly much confusion. That could be rectified Sir, I believe by leadership - leadership that is not forthcoming, and I'm not only referring to Manitoba, Sir. Mr. Speaker, I do believe that there is a very real danger. I'd say that the odds are that the Oui vote will win on the 20th of this month, and then there will be a lot of soul searching but it might be a little too late. Mr.

Speaker, I do not believe you can divorce the question of the referen dum with a question of possible changes in the confederation in the make­ up of this country. It is unfortuna tely that so many Canadians feel that what happened a 10 0 years ago on the Plains of Abraham, the 45-minute battle, or so, between to foreign countries, between France and England, should regulate what's going to happen in this beautiful country of ours - 200 years. Mr. Speaker, I don't think that this is the issue. I don't think the French people will conquer it.

The French showed that it had very little interest in their possession here in Canada. There were two groups who equally decided to join and form a country. The French ·people I think are responsible if there still is a Canada today because they defended it againstthe invaders from the South . Mr. Speaker, this was ratified by England and we were supp osed to embark and prosper as a country, as partners. Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose the following analogy that I hope will make you understand, make us understand a little better the situation as we know it today.

I am thinking of a marriage that took place in the days when maybe the female partner was some kind of a second-class citizen maybe and had to stay married because of the children and because of security. And this was the situation for many years, Mr.

Speaker, where the bride, in this case the province of Quebec and the Canadians of French origin had to, certainly the agreement that they made when they joine d together was not fulfilled in so many instances, but like the bride, whenever a bride finds difficulties or has started to cry, well in the old days you would buy her a hat or give her a present and tell her that things would go well and then you'd forget again until the next time. I don't know if what the Honourable Member for lnkster said about - but made the statement of Mr. Trudeau said, was exactly the way it was made.

I didn't hear it, but if this is the case I certainly cannot share the opinion that many people have of Mr. Levesque. My position on separatism is well known. I don't have to apologize for making a statement, nor do I have to explain, but I consider Mr. Levesque a great man, a man of courage, certainly not a coward. We needed a Mr. Levesque. It's been going on for more than 10 0 years and finally somebody is standing up. And the times have changed, Mr . Speaker. Marriages are not exactly the same. The bride now wants to stand on her own two feet, wants equality.

She is facing the bridegroom and she is saying, no, there is no point, and this is what Mr. Levesque is saying, let's separate as friends, but let's separate, we have nothing to gain. Mr. Levesque is saying exactly what so many people, especially in western Canada, want to hear. You don't want, you don't need French in Regina, Fort Qu' Appelle or Winnipeg, there is no point in it. There is no point at all, why should you be embarrassed about that, why should you be forced to give the service. Let's separate and let's negotiate together to see if we can be friends. Mr.

Speaker, the strategy has been by everybody to say we will not negotiate sovereignty association, I've said the same thing myself. But if the Referendum is won by the Oui force, I think that we 3302

Tuesday,6 May, 1980 will have to negotiate, I think it would be ridiculous not to at least to talk and see what they want. You are not going to create an island in Canada, an enemy group and go to war. Mr. Speaker, I think it is so important that people speak up, because all that we have heard has been negative, we will not negotiate with you. The only confusing statement has been, yes, we might try to change the Constitution. Promis es, promis es, promises, this is the hat that you are giving the bride to stop her tears, and there is no leadership, no suggestions, no alternative.

Many of people that will vote for the Oui do not want separation, but are indeed voting against the status quo because there is no other alternative. That is why it would have been useful. There are 15 days today, Sir, and then it might be too late, days to show that we want these people, we want to keep Canada united, but we und erstand the aspiration and the desire of other people also, that we do not become so parochial that we can't see the danger to this most beautiful country of ours. It has often been said that we should do away with the hyphe nated Cana di an , tha t we should be Canadians.

No one could support that more than I, Mr. Speaker, providing, of course, we have the proper definition of what a Canadian is. Fortuna tely you had many of the groups that came into this countr y, came in to settle in western Canada, ignoring what this country was all about; they still do, feeling that they were coming to some country like the United States.

It was all right when Quebec was quiet, when they weren't even contr olling their destiny in their own province, everything was all right, but when somebody gets up and speaks for his rights, when the bride said, I think I have had enough, well then we patted her on the head and said get back, go and do your dishes, keep quiet, don't rock the boat. Don't rock the boat. What are you? Are you an enemy of Canada? By rocking the boat, we have got such a good country, it has been a great country.

When that grouphas had it exactly their way, when it has been 100 percent receiving and no giving at all, and unfortuna tely this is the situation here, Mr. Speaker. It needs leadership, it was brought to a head by Mr. Levesque. I hope that he loses the Referendum, but I think that we needed a Mr. Levesque. I think we needed somebody who finally stood up and said, hey, those times are past forever, they are gone, they are behind us. We want to live as equal partners or we dissolve the marriage, it is practically an annulment, because you haven't fulfilled your obligations.

Look at what happened in Manitoba 90 years ago. Look at what happened in Manitoba, practically all the Franco-Manitobans are assimilated now. Oh you can say that you feel sorry and it is no use blaming the people that are living today with the governments of today, but you would think that these governments would bend over backwards to rectify a wrong that was done, that was perpetuated for so long. It didn't take very long when Quebec tried to do exactly the same thing that English Canada had done for years.

Well the accusation went against Quebec and it didn't take very long for a Federal Court of this country to say you are wrong. They had to couple Manitoba with this to say that you are wrong. Mr. Speaker, I think that we really have to look and see what we want. We know and we should know that the status quo can not go, they will be no status quo, there will be a separation of Canada if a real effort isn't done.

After weighing this, looking at everything and being faced with the situation of a divorce or a separation or a reconciliation that will satisfy both partners, many of the people in the West figured, well maybe we should leave. I submit that there are more separatists outside of Quebec than there are in Quebec. If we want to look, not only on the language issue, Mr. Speaker, but on all issues, Sir, it might be too late in fifteen days, we might destroy the most beautiful country in the world. We are not living in the United States.

I like the United States as a neighbour, but I am so proud of living in Canada where we can have our own culture, where we are retaining something from the British and the French, and adopt something from the progress that you talk about that is happening south of us. But we have a better understanding of values now, I would say, as a country, than the Americans have. Without knocking the Americans at all, I can say that I am so proud of living in the best country in the world, a country that could be made so much better, that could be a paradise, if there is such a thing.

We are complaining all the time like everybody, but who can live the way we do here in Canada. This can go by the board, Sir, because Canada cannot exist without Quebec, and I don't think that Quebec can exist without Canada. That would be the No. 1 step, and then you will see Alberta and other provinces probably become annexed to the 51s t, 52nd, 53rd, 54th state, and that will break up this country and it will be too late, Mr. Speaker. There is fifteen days for people to get serious, for the leaders to take matters in their own hands and show leadership, to come with some hard facts.

We are faced now with an ultimatum by a partner who is saying, you don't want me, you don't love me, you hardly tolerate me, and I will not keep in a union where there is no love, no acceptance, where we are not going to try to eradicate prejudice in this society of ours, Sir. That is what is missing, and you hear so little about that. You hear about these awful people in Quebec that want to vote Oui, that want to separate. These people want exactly what so many people in the west want.

I said a while ago that I would be pleased to be a Canadian, short - just Canadian, not a hyphenated Canadian, if we understood the situation. But this is not the case. We talk about the cost now, and it is something worth fighting for, worth paying for, but it doesn't have to be that costly. There are certain things that can be done. For instance, we pass legislation here that people can use French as a teaching language, but every time they want a school they have to fight.

The politicians look at the votes, and there is not too many constituencies, if any, that are controlled by Franco-Manitobans, and they are afraid of the backlash because there is no leadership. It has always been the same. How many people were well-intentioned in this House, talking either on the question of private schools, aid to private schools, and on the question of a French education. And there was hesitation on the partof some of the leaders to act because they felt it was political suicide. But lo and behold, when these 3303

Tuesday,6 May, 1980 things became law, when a recorded vote was asked in this legislaure, every one stood to a man, to a member, to a woman. A few of them ducked the votes, but look, looking at the question of recognizing French as a teaching language in the first step taken by the Roblin government. That passed unani mously and you can search the documents and find it, Mr. Speaker. And what happene d when the Schreyer gov ernment then expanded that and passed Bill 11 3. Tha t also was unanimous, Mr. Speaker.

You know, Levesque is not an enemy of ours, but Levesque is saying, this is enough, you've pushed us far enough. I don't want to fight with you, I don't want to necessarily get a lawyer and try and get every1hing that you have. I just want to annul, to divorce, the two partners. Let us go back and be master in our old place, where we won't bother you, because we are not at home in the rest of Canada. You take a Winn ipegger, Sir, that will go to Quebec City, and he'll come back and say, that damn policeman, I know he could und erstand English, but he spoke to me only in French, and they're insulted.

How many Quebecers come around here and they're pleased if somebody tried to make an effort to understand them. This is equality? This is sharing the respo nsibility and the love of two people un ited together in marriage? Mr. Speaker, I cannot impress on you enough the importance of this referendum. It might only be step number 1, it could be a change of government. But it had to be brought forward because right now you have only two alternatives, the status quo which is not acceptable to anybody, and even those that fought for it are now saying, very quietly, they are saying, no, we're ready to change that.

But what are they ready to do? What leadership had we seen? We have some strong Premier in Mani toba, they're united only in the west, I should say. Why don't they show their leadership abi lity, stand up and be counted and be considered by history as real strong Canadians. Not just necessarily working for the short term for re-election and so on because of the fear of a backlash, because it is popular to kick somebody when they are down. Mr. Speaker, I cannot impress on you and the members of this House enough where time is running out, there are 15 days. We have been united in one thing.

The Prime Minister of Canada, the Premier of Ontario, and the Premier of the Western Provinces have said, we will not negotiate with you, which is ridiculous, because they will have to negotiate. Why couldn't there be something positive, why couldn't there be something to rectify the wrong that is being done for so many years? When the Premier of Manitoba will not allow a discussion on this until after the referendum, when he's saying that it's something else, it'll be too late.

There won't be any need then for a renewed cons ti tution or a confederation, and so on, because a large portion might say that they want to leave. There is nothing, the Minister said we can't give too many concrete actions. Of course, we can't formulate policies in 15 days when we haven't been able to do it in 100 years.

But at least if this was a forum to ind icate the people, the normal, ordina ry people of Quebec, who want to keep this country together, but do not accept the status quo that they are some-well meaning people who will do their every effort to rectify what has gone wrong and to try to keep the marriage together in order to protect all the children and to keep on living in this country of ours, which is undoub tedly the Number 1 country in the world. Mr. Speaker, I apologize if my remarks were distorted some.

I certainly had not intended to speak today but I was shocked when the First Minister refused a fair request that a discussion, one day, in the life of this parliament, one day in the life of this session, to discuss, to express our views, to show that we're ready to try to fight prejudice, not only to tolerate, to suffer fellow Canadians, but to accept them with love, unde rstanding and acceptance. Yes, the word acceptance means that you want a little more than tolerate. I'm probably a voice in the wilderness today, Mr. Speaker.

I don't imagine that too much will be done, and we practically need a miracle, and maybe that's what we need to keep this country together. They say that when there's life, there's hope, and in 15 days from there now, we might be very sorrybecause of our lack of action, our lack of leadership, and Sir, I hope, I pray that it won't be too late, that it won't destroy this great country of ours as we know it now. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono ur ab le Minis ter of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, I don't intend to deal with the general question, which I think we'll have a chance to talk about during the debate on the budget as has been ind icated by the First Minister, but I think there are a few things that have been said here that perhaps should be clarified. The Member for St.

Boniface has made a number of comments, I think 90 percent of which I would have no trouble endorsing and seconding him and supporting him on, but he is leaving the impression, which I think has to be dealt with immedia tely upon that impression having been now established, at least from his point of view, about the position of the First Minister here.

And I want to remind the House that I think it was four years ago, perhaps 19 77, spring of 19 77, three years ago, when the western premiers met in Manitoba at Brandon, that a joint position was stated at that time by the four western premiers, and of course it was not the Premier who now sits as the head of the government in Manitoba at this time, and the position taken was that the western premiers, having reviewed the White Paper that had been put out by the Quebec government, would not and could not support the principle of sovereignty association. Now, the comments by the Membe r for St.

Bon iface are the type of comments that cause the problem, because they go back and do not define what is meant by that name, and it's an innocuous sounding name when you hear it. But I think that the position that was taken by the western premiers was based on the fact that they had read the White Paper that had been produced in Quebec, and that sovereignty referred to political sovereignty, and association referred to economic association, and that is what was said. And if the province of Quebec, of course, votes yes, for sovereignty associat ion, are we to not 3304

Tuesday,6 May, 1980 believe that that was the intent of the name, political sovereignty? And that is the part that causes the problem, because if the rest of Canada says, we will negotiate sovereignty association, Mr. Speaker, then they are saying what they don't intend to do. They do not intend to negotiate the political sovereignty of any province. Now, furthermore, the comments that have been made with regard to the case, the event of a No vote, have been spelled out very clearly by the First Mini ster of Manitoba; they were spelled out two weeks.

He was the one voice that said, in the event of a No vote in Quebec, that it was incumbent on the rest of the country to no longer delay constitutional reform, to get on with it; and went on further to say that he felt that it could be resolved, although it had been under way since the late 19 60s, it has been under way that many years, perhaps 15 years, that it probably could be brought to a head within a period of time. He went so far as to state that that period of time was perhaps 18 months to two years. Mr. Speaker, the Member for St.

Boniface says from his chair that that position was refused by the other Premiers. I don't think it was addressed by the other Premiers. I don't think there were any thoughts in their minds in any way, shape or form that there should be a longer time period required. It is simply that the Premier of Manitoba went out so far as to try and give some indication as to what he thought was the time frame required. All of the four western Premiers stated pretty clearly in their public interviews that they desired constitutional reform as well.

Some of them felt they wanted constitutional reform worse than Quebec wanted it. The position that has been placed by the Premiers, and by the Premier of Manitoba, is more than clear. It is these kind of fudging comments that have been made by the types of contributions by the Member for St. Boniface that draws the confusion into the picture. What the Premier of Manitoba has said is that he's not negotiating political sovereignty of one of the provinces in Canada.

What is really happening is that those who are intending to vote Yes, and this has been stated very clearly by all the participants in the publ icdebate in Quebec on the No side, is the fact that they don't think that the people who are wanting to vote Yes are in fact cognizant of the fact that" it refers to political sovereignty. That is what is being attempted to be done, to point out that it is political sovereignty that is being referred to. Mr.

Speaker, just to un derline what the First Mini ster here, I thought, made relatively clear as recently as the Question Period today, as to what Yes meant and what No meant, and the obligations that were involved in either of those votes, has already, within half an hour, been turned around, twisted around by the Member for St. Boniface. I think it is important to recognize that Manitoba has not changed its position over the period of two governments on this issue.

The Premier of Manitoba now has said beyond that, that it is high time and a time frame has been given for the renegotiation of constitutional affairs in Canada and in the event of a No vote, it is clear that that can be done. In the event of a Yes vote, what is evidently clear is that that type of negotiation is not going to happen. I think it has to be relatively clear that it would not be in the best interests of the people of Canada or of any given province, in that type of a vote. The Member for St. Boniface says that there are some people looking at politics coming out of it, and their own re-election.

I think he is referring to the western Canadian Premiers. I would think that in this particular situation, there is certainly more of a political overtone with what is happening in the province of Quebec than there is any place else in Canada and I trust that his comments were referring to the province of Quebec. But that is not the context in which I under stood him to say it here in his comments today, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say finally, in conclusion, that I have watched the western Premiers, who have been commented on today, watched them publicly in their comments, and I don't think there are four stronger federalists in Canada than there are in the four western Premiers at the present time. I think what they are attempting to do is to try and lay out as clearly and as starkly as possible the implications of a Yes vote and a No vote. They are simply trying to lay out the ground rules so everybody understands. That is all they are mainly attempting to do.

If you want to get into the debate of what should go into a revised constitution, that applies in the event of a No vote, and the Premier said as late as today that he welcomes that type of input. But if you want to get into the debate as to what goes into a new political sovereignty for one province, then that is a different matter. They have said that the official position is that that's not negotiable and the case is well made. Why talk about it now if it is non­ negotiable. You have already destroyed your position of being a non-negotiable position. Mr.

Speaker, I think it should be clear, and obviously isn't, that the intents, I think, of all of those who are in positions of leadership in western Canada, and as far as I can see, the other provinces, are the strong federal position. I am sure that they would all be active in the referendum in Quebec, perhaps again judging from their public comments, if in fact they thought it would do any good. I think they are attempting in general to lay out the reality of the two positions as they see them.

If they can do more, they would be willing to, but in fact I think there is concern that there is may be more harm to be done than good, in some cases. That, Mr. Speaker, I hope clarifies at least a little bit the position with regard to the Yes and the No position. As I say, I agree with the majority of what the Member for St. Boniface has said in his speech, and the vast majority of it, I wanted to clarify what I perceived to be the positions in Manitoba and in western Canada that have been taken by the political leaders. COMMITTEE CHANGE MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Logan. MR. WILLIAM JENKINS: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if I could have leave of the House to make a substitution on the Public Utilities Committee. It would be the Honourable Member for Rossmere replacing the Honourable Member for The Pas on the Public Utilities Committee. 3305

Tuesday,&M ay, 1980 MR. SPEAKER: Are those changes agreeable? (Agreed) Are you ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion to go into Supply? MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply with the Honourable Member for Radisson in the Chair for the Department of Health, and the Hono urable Member for Virden in the Chair for the Department of Agriculture. CONCURREN T COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - AGRICULTURE MR. CHAIRMAN, Morris McGregor (Virden): I call the committee to order.

We're on the estimates of the Agriculture Department, Resolution No. 6. The Honourable Minister. HON. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to thank members of the committee for allowing us to have the evening to allow me to meet with the Canadian Wheat Board and the Chinese Ambassador who's in town. This engagement had been laid on somewhat before I knew committee would be sitting today and I want to thank them for allowing this to happen. I have copies of my opening statement if the members opposite would like them and members of the media, that I will be referring to. Mr.

Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present to members of the assembly the proposed expenditure estimates of the Manitoba Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending March 31s t, 19 81. My department's proposed expenditures, including both Opera ting Expenses and Acquisition/ Construction of physical assets, amount to 33.9 million. This represents a 3.7 million increase over the adjusted vote of the 19 79-80 fiscal year.

The estimates for the up coming year reflect my department's ongoing commitment to strengthening our support and assistance for a strong family farm and a strong agriculture sector in the province. Prior to discussing the expenditur es of estimates in detai l, I would like to make several comments regarding the performance of Manitoba's agriculture sector over the past year. In 1979, as in 19 78, our province's agricultural economy experienced strong growth and development. It is esti mated tha t Manitoba's Farm Cash Receipts will reach a record level of 1. 3 billion in 19 79.

The increase over 1978 is just over 16 percent, continuing the strong upward trend of last year. The gross receipts of producers of such commodities as flaxseed, rapeseed, cattle and calves and poultr y are expected to in crease sign ificantly. Total net farm income was up a modest 5.7 since there was almost no change in 19 79 in the value of the inventories which is included in the total, following substantial increases in the previous two years. The progressive Manitoba agriculture has always depended on many factors such as the climatic conditions, availabe markets and transportation.

Throughout 19 79, produc ers were faced with obstacles including late seeding, early frost and marketing and transportation problems. Despite this, the agricultural economy strengthened, a reflection of the resiliency of farmers in Manitoba. Looking ahead, I amk optimistic that Manitoba's agricultural sector will remain buoyant, continuing to develop and grow in the decade ahead even though we are now experiencing an extended period of hot dry weather which, if it continues for another three or four weeks could seriously affect the performance of the agricultural sector this year.

Over the past year I have continued to examine and evaluate the programs within my department. I believe that the reorganization initiated last fiscal year has been successful in effecting delivery of programs in a manner which is a reflection of the needs of the producers. In conjunction with this, I would like to stress the increasing involvement of mun icipalit ies, local government di stricts and producers on program development and overall spirit of co-operation which has occurred.

An appropriate example of producer involvement would be the Rapeseed 80 Home Study Course which has recently been delivered through printed material and television. This unique extension tool met with such outstan ding success because it reflected producer needs and represented their involvement. As mem bers of the Assem bly will note, our expenditure estim ates continue to relate to the structure initiated last year, with the underlying firm comm itment to the objective of susta ining and enhancing agricultural growth in Manitoba.

Before dealing with the specifics of the depa rtm ent's expenditure estimates, I would like to table a chart outlining the reorganization of the department for the members of the committee. I have those copies here for distribution.

I would like at this particular time to also say that I am pleased that we have still with us, in the position of Associate Deputy, Ed Hudek, who was the Acting Deputy last year during estimates, who is now with us in Associate Deputy capacity and is also responsible for the Land and Water Division; Rod Bailey, who comes to us from the federal Department of Agriculture, being the Deputy Minister; Morris Kraut, who is with us in the ADM position responsible for marketing; Greg Lacomy still is in charge of mana gement; and also the ADM responsible for extension, who is known to most of the members of the committee, Tom Pringle, who is also an ADM.

As stated earlier, the proposed expenditures for the 19 80-8 1 fiscal year are 33.9 million, up approxima tely 3.7 million relative to the adjusted vote of the past fiscal year. In calculating the adjusted vote for the past year, approxima tely 334,000 has been deleted from our budget and transferred to the Department of Natural Resources for the purposes of admin istering the total Dutch Elm Disease Program under one department.

Approximately 1.3 million has been transferred into .the department from the Department of Highways and Transportation respecting the admin istration of the Northern Sewer and Water Program under the Manitoba Water Services Board. In addition, about 12 3, 000 has been tran sferred in from the Department of Na tur al Resources reg ard ing 3306

Tuesday,6M ay, 1980 Conservation Districts, which will be administered by the Land Utilization

Section of our department. In the area of staffing, we are proposing a level of 731 .35 staff man years, up from the adjusted level of 722. 11 staff man years in the 197 9-80 year. This net inc rease of 9.24 SMYs, or staff man years, is comprised of an increase of 14 .24 new positions and a deletion of five positions. In my ongo ing review of programs, I have concluded that there were several areas within the agriculture sector which deserve immediate attention. In the next two or three weeks, we will be devoting our attention to the possibility of the present drought conditions continuing.

I have already encouraged farmers to take full advantage of our Crop Insur ance Program and encouraged them to register before the closing date of April 30. Departmental staff are now preparing our pumping equipment, should it be required soon for the dugout pumping, the filling of dugouts or on farm water supplies. Contact has been made with the PFRA to integrate their contingency plans for water supply with ours and to make sure full use is made of our community pastures.

Staff will also be involved in finding other emergency pastures and id entifying hay supp lies for the province's livestock producers should these become necessary. Farmers are experiencing other difficult conditions, as I know members of the Com mittee are well aware, besides the drought this year, problems such as high interest rates and other high input prices. We are carefully monitoring this situation and would hope that the financial institutions will continue to support farmers, particularly young producers, during these difficult economic times.

Over the longer term, the princip al areas we propose to strengthen and expand are in the areas of Livestock Management and Production; Market Development, an extension of that type of work; Agri-Water and Land Resource Management; 4-H Programs and strong extension services that can provide management counselling as well as good technical advice to develop our human resources in the agricultural and rural communities. All of these thrusts are designed to encourage and strengthem the family farm - a cont inuing commitment of this government.

In the first area, initiatives will be unde rtaken to stimu late the devel opm ent and growth of the livestock sector. This includes the development of a new stabilization program in co-operation with the federal government for our livestock indus try in Mani toba. A livestock ide ntification system for producers will be developed. The thrust of these efforts is aimed at improving the stability and the returns of livestock producers and the expansion of value-added activities, particul arly in meat processing in the province.

In the second area, Market Development, the department proposes to develop and inten sify market analysis and information necessary to expand and develop export markets and to assist in the impr ovement of the agricultural prod ucts transportation system. If I may digress momentarily, I would like to state that we have negotiated the lease of sufficient hopper cars to meet the commitments I had made last fall to lease 400 hopper cars for one year to help alleviate the problems currently being encountered across the western provinces with respect to the movement of grain.

In co-operation with the other western provinces we will continue to work towards impr oving the grain handling and transportation symstem, recognizing the lead responsibility of the federal government. The thir d area, Water and Land Resource Management, represents a continued intensification of our efforts to assist farmers in upgrading their productivity and returns through effective water and land resource management and the expansion of use of water for irrigation purposes.

To complement the above areas, the department will sustain the strong extension services which have been developed to continue being responsive to the needs of farmers. We also intend to expand efforts and increase expenditures in the development and upgrading of water and sewer infrastructure for rural com muni ties in both southern and northern Manitoba. Finally, I wish to make reference to the Canada­ Manitoba Subsid iary Agreement, better known to most in the agricultural community as the Agro-Man Agreement, on Value-Added Crops Production.

Throughout the 19 79-80 fiscal year, a large number of projects have been implemented in a wide variety of areas. I have been extremely pleased with the progress on these projects and look forward to an expanded program over the 1980-81 fiscal year. I am particularly happy to view the working bond which has been developing among farmers, associations, producer groups, the University of Manitoba, along with Agriculture Canada and my department in carryi ng out the various projects and demo nstra tions.

It is our firm belief tha t this agreement will provide substantial stimulus to the development and growth of Manitoba's agricultural sector by assisting producers to expand production of value-added crops, increase their efficiency in forage production and enhance the quality of land and water resources available to them.

To conclude, I am confident that through the continue d active co-operation with farmers, farm organizations, Agri-Busi ness and others, and the provision of a high quality of service, our department will continue to assist farmers and other rural residents to progress toward achievement of their development objectives. I look forward to an objective review of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and welcome the opposition, as well as members from my own government, the input that they have in the next few days. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A few brief comments in terms of res ponding to the Minister of Agriculture's statement with respect to the operations of his department, and his government's thrust into agriculture. It is certainly evident from his statement that agriculture in Manitoba is in a depressed state, Mr. Chairman. The problems that the hog ind ustry is facing, the problems that the cattle indus try is facing, the problems that most farmers, if not all farmers, are facing with respect to credit availability, high 3307

Tuesday,&M ay, 1980 interest rates, are putting a squeeze on farmers of Manitoba. Mr. Chairman, this government is attempting to pride itself in being a friend and supporting a strong family farm and a strong agricultural sector in this province. Mr. Chairman, nothing could be farther from the facts of the matter and the truth of the matter.

What we have seen in the last several years has been a decline in farm numbers, the likes that we have not seen for many years, with many farmers being forced off the land, farms being purchased and consolidated, farmers going bankrupt with respect to high interest rates, and what do we have as the policy from the provincial government? We have a policy to discontinue operating loans to farmers.

We have a shift in policy from the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation to the private banks, and the Minister in his statement today says he hopes that the banking institutions and financial institutions will continue to support farmers, particularly young producers, during these difficult economic times. Mr.

Chairman, if the Min ister was seriously concerned about the plight of young farmers he certainly would not put them in the position that he has by his government's policy, by putting them at the mercy of someone else in the financial world with nowhere to go, if they are in trouble, but to go bankrupt, Mr. Chairman. That has been the move that this government has made in terms of assisting farmers in providing them with financial resources to continue their operations, as a result of high interest rates, and more than that, Mr.

Chairman, problems that farmers are facing no w in terms of cash shortage in terms of putting their crops in. Many farmers are faced with an acute shortage of capital, operating capital, to be able to purchase their required fertilizers and seeds, to be able to start their seeding operations. What do we have coming from the Mini ster of Agriculture? We have a statement saying, well, we are going to monitor the situation and hope that the financial institutions will look after them. Mr. Chairman, that is not good enough.

In the Minister of Agriculture's home community, I think there is ample evidence to tell us, to show us how this government's agricultural policies have affected not only farmers but affected rural Manitoba in general. Mr. Chairman, there have been at least three businesses in the community of Melita, that I have been advised have gone bankrupt within the last year, and there are two others that are virtually on the rocks, virtually going bankrupt. Mr. Chairman, what does that tell you? That tells you that the farming community is in a pretty sad state of affairs.

The income position of farmers is so tight that their purchasing power has been limited and the impact on small business in rural communities has been to such a degree that many small businesses are either on the verge of going bankrupt or have already gone bankrupt. As a result, we have a total economic depression in rural Manitoba. The Minister admits in his own statement that the total net farm income was up by a modest 5.7 percent. Mr.

Chairman, what was the inflation rate in the province of Manitoba in the last year, which really shows that the net income of farmers has gone backwards; they are in a losing position within Manitoba. What has this government done as one of its policies? Removed the financial abili ty of farmers to operate by changing their program through the Manitoba Agricultu ral Credit Corporation. Mr. Chairman, as well, what we find here now is the Minister of Agriculture indicating to us that we are now going to stimulate the development and growth of our livestock sector. Mr.

Chairman, which group of men and women in the Legislature here, over the last number of years, stood on their heels and criticized the former admin istration to no end that one of the greatest handicaps that producers faced in the beef ind ustry, was the depression of low prices; was as a result of the expansion of the livestock market in the province of Manitoba. It was the Conservative Opposition at the time that said that the low prices in the livestock industry were caused by the over-production of beef in Manitoba. Now, Mr.

Speaker, we have the prices, again in beef, declining almost, I believe, to the point where, when we question the Minister further, that he may come to the point where he will be in a position to make a pay-out under the Beef Income Assurance Plan, which he has now put the final touches in his sabotage move to kill the entire Beef In come Assurance Plan; that he will, if the proper analysis is done in terms of the cost of production, be put in the position of making a pay-out.

Rather than that, he has tried continually to sabotage, I believe, one of the most successful income stabilization programs that this country has ever had in terms of defining the cost of production and the returns on inv estment. So we have no w the Mini ster of Agriculture telling us that he is going to increase livestock production. What do we have in the situation of hogs, Mr. Chairman? We have now the hog ind ustry going into virtually almost depression prices in terms of the sale of hogs.

It has gone to the point where the Federal Stabilization Program has come into play, but the Federal Stabilization Program, which the Mini ster says he enjoys and tries to take credit for and he ind icates his support for such a program, if the market trends continue in terms of the income of hog producers, it can only keep producers in a net loss position because the Stabiliz ation Program, while it is designed to take into account cost of production, it is designed to assist producers to only 90 percent of the previous five-year average of the market situation.

So that a Stabilization Program of that nature can only put farmers in a long-term, should the prices continue low, in a long-term net loss position. But we have this Minister indicating that he is supporting that kind of a stabilization program; while we have the Minister of Agriculture from Ottawa saying, look farmers, while we have a Stabilization Program in Canada, unless you clean up your house in terms of organization yourself into an orderly market ing system, don't expect the Government of Canada to put much more money into a stabilization program.

I would like to kno w what the Min ister of Agriculture's position will be when the federal government will indic ate its no longer support to producers who are not prepared to settle their own affairs and organize themselves like the majority of the agricultural sector, and other ind ustries, who are organized in the marketplace. This Minister will say 3308

Tuesday, 6 May, 1980 that I don't support any orderly marketing systems in the province of Mani toba or nationally, I want national income stabilization plans. Mr. Chairman, the province of Quebec, in the hog ind ustry, is now going full tilt in terms of expanding its hog production. It is subsidizing the hog ind ustry, which is almost totally vertically integrated by the corporate sector in that province.

What we will see in Manitoba, we will see within the next year or two, I predict, that the province of Quebec and other provinces will be pushing Ottawa to clean up their own house, and to clean up their own house how, Mr. Chairman? By organizing a national marketing system in hogs, in effect, supply management. We will have a decline, as we are seeing now in the production of hogs in Manitoba, and you will end up, Mr. Chairman, I foresee, with a net loss position with respect to Manitoba's share in the marketing of hogs in this country.

If the Minister does not get off his rear and look and project himself into some forward thinking with respect to the agricultural sector in this province it can only hurt farmers in Manitoba. We have seen it in the turkey ind ustry, Mr. Chairman, and that was the first move where the Minister did not want to in volve himself, or at least he said he wasn 't prepared to get himself involved in, and that is the change in the market share agreement in the National Turkey Marketing Agency. That agreement, Mr.

Chairman, can only put Manitoba in a very awkward position and that, I believe, could be the first step to wrecking marketing schemes across this country and, of course, hurting the producers in the long term, the producers of Manitoba. Mr. Chairman, the Minister ind icates that he has negotiated the lease of sufficient hopper cars to meet the commitments he made last fall of 400 hopper cars. Mr.

Chairman, I want to tell the Minister that while it was a commendable move to indicate that we were short of hopper cars, the Mini ster better realize that right now the hopper cars at the Lakehead are waiting at least three days to be loaded, that there are at least three terminals at the lakehead that are plugged with grains of the off­ board that the Canadian Wheat Board cannot unload the grains that it requires at the lakehead, Mr. Chairman.

It has caused the grain transport co­ ordinator now to indicate that there will be no more direct deliveries of off-board grains to the lakehead until this problem is cleared up.

So the Minister can now have all the cars he wants, but since the market system that he so eloquently defended and supported, the open market system, and he was not prepared to do anything with respect to grain that was being trucked to the lakehead and plugging up the terminals in terms of the trucking operation, now the Canadian Wheat Board, which utilizes 85 percent of the space in terms of its export commitments of the lakehead, has only in stock, I believe less than half, less than 50 percent of the grains are Wheat Board grains. So that Mr.

Chairman, the blockages that were predicted, that I asked the Minister several weeks ago to raise those conc erns, he said tha t he supported farmers; he supported farmers in terms of the trucking of their grai n, and that they could continue and he could see no problems. The problem has now occurred.

The. ports are being blocked and un less there is pressure put on by this Minister on the transport co-ordinator and on the Wheat Board to continue their pressure on the federal Ministers, the 400 cars that he has on lease will be of no benefit to the producers of Manitoba, because of his continued reluctance to interfere, to at least state his position with· respect to the open market system. Mr. Chairman, while the Minister's estimates show a slight gr owth, the objective , or at least his objective of assisting the family farm, has really gone by the wayside.

It's gone by the wayside in that he has allowed, through changes in the Farmlands Protection Act to allow corporations to purchase unlimited amounts of land, and he has now seen what has happened in terms of foreign-owned corporat ions coming into this province and purchasing land, and the consolidation of farm units will take place. He has moved through the Land­ Lease Program to terminate leases and put land up for auction after a five-year period. Mr. Chairman, talk about a regressive move in terms of assisting the family farm.

Those young farmers who were assisted by that program to get on, now virtually have no option. By the way, I have read the Minister's releases. They have no option to continue leasing if they so desire, because after a five-year term the Minister and the government is terminating those leases and putting that land up for sale. Mr. Chairman, talk about an option to producers. -(I nterjection)- Well, Mr. Chairman, you read the Mi nis ter's announ cements with respect to his statement on land leases, and the members will see that he said that the . MR. CHAIRMAN: One speaker at a time, committee. The Member for St.

George. MR. URUSKI: They will see, the honourable membe rs will see tha t those leases are being terminated. There is no statement in those press releases that the leases will continue if those farmers desire. You read the statement -(I nterjection)- Mr. Chairman, the Minister said, Oh, Billie.

The Mini ster knows full well that he has conned the producers and the farmers of Manitoba long enough and the day of reckoning has come for this Minister, and that he will have to either indicate his position or not continu e the sham that he has perpetrated on producers in the last several years, that he is the friend of the family farm.

He's allowing the land that young producers have been allowed to begin farming to be taken out of their grasp; he has allowed the corporate sector to move in to the farming areas; he has allowed the pressures that farmers have faced in terms of high interest rates to continue to go bankrupt. We have seen that in terms of the net reduction of farms in the province of Manitoba over the last three years has declined by some, almost in excess of 2,000 farms. Mr.

Chairman, this government's policy, or actually one could say lack of policy, has only led and will continue to lead to the decline of the family farm in Manitoba. The young farmer, the smaller and medium-sized farmers who are in the half to one

section sized farming community are being squeezed, 3309

Tuesday, 6 May, 1980 and they are being squeezed by the policies or the lack of policies by this Conservative admin istration, and this Minister of Agriculture certainly has to bear the full brunt of that criticism, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (b) - The Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. SAM USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the Minister gave us a very sketchy overview of agricultur e in Manitoba, as he perceives it, and I suppose as he wishes it to be. I'm not certain that that is the case.

The Minister has astutely avoided, though, to deal with the qu estion of current financial hardship that most producers are facing in Manitoba this year. It has to do with the high cost of interest rates, and I would have thought, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister might have been in a position to ind icate what discussions, if any, he has had with the federal government with respect to alleviation of the tight mone y situati on, and what he, through his department, might be contemplating in that area. There's no doubt in my mind, Mr.

Chairman, that farmers, especially the young ones who started their careers four or five years ago, will find themselves in an extremely difficult position, and there's no doubt in my mind, Mr. Chairman, that there will be many well established farmers who may feel the credit pinch this year. I don't believe there is any business that isn't severely handicapped, whether it's a newly established business, Mr. Chairman, or whether it's been one that's been there for some period of years.

Credit has become a very major problem and a major concern for all entrepreneurs, whether they be agriculturalists or other business types. So certainly that is the area of crisis, as I would perceive it, Mr. Chairman, and that crisis of course can be compounded many times by other things, other developments throughout the year, namely the kind of season they are facing; whether or not they are going to have a successful production year or not is quite an open question, given the current climatic conditions. Certainly they won't know that till after they have invested huge sums of money in input costs per acre.

But that's at a point where one cannot change one's mind, Mr. Chairman. Obviously the Minister can appreciate the point I'm making. They may very well be caught with a huge investment of new capital that is costing them an awful lot of money with perhaps a crop failure facing them at the end of it. I think is really the area of concern that everyone should pay some attention to. The Min ister somehow skipped over that very lightly, making only mention of the fact that he hoped that the financial institutions will do their thing to help keep these people afloat. It maybe necessary to do more than that, Mr.

Chairman. I don't know what the remedies might be but I would have hoped that the Minister would have at least given us some ind ication that he is prepared with continge ncy plans for any eventuality, should we find ourselves in a position of many people facing bankrupt cy because of high interest and poor growing conditions. A combination of the two can spell real disaster in a short period of time. I hope that the current drought is something that is not going to continue for any period of time. Certainly if it does, we're going to h&ve some serious problems.

The other aspect that I think the Minister has skipped over very quickly, in fact not even dealt with, Mr. Chairman, is the continuing and accelerating decline of our farm numbers and whether or not he is of the view that those declines are really reflecting his government's policy and, if they are, that's of course a pol icy position tha t he may want to elaborate on and defend, Mr. Chairman.

It seems to me the appropriate question to ask the Minister is whether or not he has fixed in his mind just at what population level in agriculture does he feel that we should level off at over the next several years or the next decade, or whatever. It seems that the decline of farmers in the last census period has increased by 100 percent, approximately, over the previous census period and that has to tell us somettiing.

I don't know whether it tells us that the Minister's policies are not working to the advantage of new beginners in agriculture, or is it merely a question of the old retiring and their units not being viable enough in today's economics to provide for new entries on those same units and therefore the Mini ster is promoting consolidation processes which, in effect, will reduce farm numb ers. There are all sorts of combinations of things at work here that could give us the answer but, Mr. Chairman, I put the question to the Minister. He has a research depar tment.

He has a tremendous amount of capactiy for analytical work and I would hope that before the estimates are complete that he can illuminate somewhat his views on where farm numb ers should be for optimum agricultur e in Manitoba and by what period of time; or whether he is going to view with a degree of alarm the fact that that is taking place, notwithstanding his philosophy or his programs or his wishes, but that he should be other than silent on the question because it is there, plain to see, and with the increased pressure in the marketing area and in the area of cost of production, I can see the acceleration of an exodus taking place very very quickly.

In the next five years I could imagine tens of - well not tens of thousands but thousands of additional farm people leaving the countryside. Mr. Chairman, I think it's im portant tha t we maintain policies which do provide a reasonable opportunity for young people to enter the ind ustry. When I say policies, I'm not talking about simply a credit link with the govern ment or with the department; I'm talking about credit as being one component; I'm talking about access to land as being a component; I'm talking about pricing of products as being a component.

All of these things are, in my opinion, stabilizing influences on farm populations and any one of them alone obviously will not do the job and therefore it has to be approached on the basis of a fairly broad program involving a number of components. In Canada there is obviously a major shift of production taking place and accelerating away from the prairies, Mr. Chairman, and that should be a concern to this Minister and to this government.

Regardless of their ide ology on marke ting or financing or tenure or whatever, I don't think that they can afford to ignore the fact that there is a huge thrust under way in eastern Canada for provincial self-sufficiency in all agricultural commodities to the 3310

Tuesday,& May, 1980 extent that they can be grown or produced in those regions of Canada. It seems to me that our traditional intra-Canadian export market is being eroded very quickly in a number of commodities. I think that probably they could have been avoided years ago had there been a willingness on the part of governments to move in the direction of a stability in prices and, indeed, some control of the marketing process, to make sure that we don't continue on with the boom and bust cycle, whether it be in the livestock field or . . . Well, that's the remaining one, Mr.

Chairman, because most other commodities are covered by some form of marketing agency operated by either government or producers in most provinces. But there is a thrust in eastern Canada. I don't know what the Quebec thrust is going to result in because that particular thrust is also overshadowed by a referendum that they are going to have in a couple of weeks and I just don't know what all of that is going to mean, Mr. Chairman. But assuming the referendum result is that Quebec chooses to remain the same part of Canada as it is today, then there will be a push.

There will be a push for a supply management system at a time when those provinces in eastern Canada have achieved their self-sufficiency. It probably would have been to the advantage of Western Canadian farmers to have had a national marketing scheme under way ten years ago, Mr. Chairman; it probably would have been to their advantage.

To the extent that it wasn't possible and didn't happen will probably, in the historical context some day, be looked upon with some degree of regret , because tha t is probably the only mechanism that could have maintained Western Canada as an exporting portion of Canada to markets in other parts of Canada. I recall, Mr.

Chairman, dis cussions in Ottawa before the first national agency was set up and I know the arguments that were being put forward then by the central provinces, in particular - well, I don't know central, I guess Manitoba is central - but by Ontario and Quebec, the two major provinces who were pushing very much for supply management arrangements with respect to agricultural products, based on allocations of production related to human populations in their respective provinces. Mr . Chairman, I believe I drew this to the attention of this Mi nis ter on more than one occa sion.

In fact, suggested and pleaded with him that he not fall into the trap of supporting the Alberta people who had some feelings towards the same formula for market growth as did the two large provinces in central Canada; and that is that market growth in each province should reflect population growth and so on. I pleaded with this Minister, Mr. Chairman, and suggested to him, on more than one occasion, that we object very strenuously to that concept, because that concept is going to transfer production rights away from this province, because we are not a province that has, as a matter of fact, Mr.

Chairman, due in good measure to other government policies of this government, we have had a negative population situation developing very quickly over the last two years. Where if you are going to use the population, human population index, as a basis for allocating production rights in national supply management programs, then Manitoba is losing by virtue of the fact that they are losing people. To have supported Alberta's position, with respect to allocation of market for turkey producers a couple of years ago, we have put ourselves in a bit of box, Mr. Chairman.

We have put ourselves in a position where we now are not able to, with credibility, take the original position which we took when the first marketing boards were established on a national basis, and that is that human populations have nothing to do with where production occurs, but rather historical production patterns and economy of scale were criteria that were more logic al in our viewpoint.

That is what we insisted on for a number of years, and that has only been upset by the intrusions of this Minister in that debate in his support of the position of the province of Alberta, who, because of their recent surge in population felt that they were entitled to a larger share of the Canadian market for turke ys. They will push the same argument for other commodities and so will Ontario and Quebec, because that argument is music to their ears, Mr.

Chairman, it is an argument that they lost orginally because there would have been no signing of any agreements on the basis that we would use human populations as a criteria. So we are in a dilemma, Mr. Chairman. I think we have only Saskatchewan and Manitoba left, caught in this population squeeze, but in particular Manitoba because of the declining human population. All of this comes to what, Mr. Chairman?

It comes to the realizat ion that because of this gov ernment's policies, not only in agriculture but in their overall economic poli cies, we are in fact reducing opportunities for Manitobans, and that, of course, tends to feed on itself and multi ply itself, Mr. Chairman, to the point where we have to admit that we have no room for new producers; that we have no job opportunities because of the declining scale of our productive unit, and so on. It is an interrelated thing having to do with the whole of Manitoba's economy. Mr.

Chairman, I have to say to this Minister that I am disappointed that I hav en't heard him utter once in the last twelve months that we should, if we are going to have national supply management programs, tha t they should not be based on provincial and huma n populations, but that the market allocation should be based on some advantages and efficiencies in production, as well as on historical patterns of production.

Prior to the establishment of the Egg Board, because the two major provinces in Eastern Canada thought that they would be successful in securing an agreement on eggs based on human population, there was a massive surge of production just prior and du ring the in itial years of that agency's operation, which resulted in a chaotic situation for the first couple of years, Mr. Chairman. But notwithstanding that, I think we were able to hold that idea off, Mr.

Chairman, and I regret that this Mini ster has not been able to do so and has capitulated to the other side of that question, which only means that there will be fewer opportunities for Manitobans to participate in agriculture. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. - the Member for St. George. 3311

Tuesday, 6 May, 1980 MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I presume that we will be moving away from the Minister's Compensation. MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on 1. (b), the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, is the Min ister prepared to table the latest correspondence that he sent to producers who are participating in the Beef Income Assurance Plan, the new contract, and letters - I believe there is a new letter that the Minister sent to producers. Does he have that on file and would he supply copies for memb ers of the Committee? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, there is no new contract, it is a matter of correspondence that has gone out from the Administration of the Department. I am sure he has a copy of it from the Livestock Producer. MR. URUSKI: No, I don't. MR. DOWNEY: I could provide the letter that went from the Director of the Program to the producers, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: I would appreciate a copy of that letter, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a copy on file. All I have is his press release that he made to the Legislature. In that press release, Mr.

Chairman, the Minister ind icated that a contributing factor to the decline in the province's cattle herds was the Beef Income Assurance Program. Could the Min ister ind icate how he arrived at the figur es of cattle num bers within the province of Manitoba and how he arrived at that statement? MR. DOWNEY: First of all, the figures that were used were, I believe, Stats Canada figures that were the source of information, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Minister says he used Stats. Can. information. Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I have also looked at Stats.

Can., and I have gone five years back, up until 1975 in terms of cattle numbers in the province of Manitoba, and I have used the period, I believe it was January of every year, of 1975, 19 76, 19 77, 1978, 19 79, and 19 80. Mr. Chairman, in 19 75, Manitoba's cattle population was roughly 1, 19 4,000. In 1976, it went down to 1, 156; in 1977, it went up to 1, 259; in 1978, 1, 201; in 1979 -(I nterjection)- Yes, 1.2 million. I am talking about 1, 201 thousands, which is 1. 2 million. In 1979, 1,1 10,000; and in 1980, 1, 067,000.

For an average reduction from 1975 to 19 80 of roughl y 10 percent in terms of cattle num bers for the province of Mani toba, of total num bers. Mr. Chairman, when you look at the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario, and I have done those other three provinces, our neighbouring provinces to the west and to the east, I took the same figures for the comparative same times of the year and it showed that Saskatchewan had a net decline in cattle of 19 percent, Mr. Chairman. It showed Alberta with a net decline of 9 percent. It showed Ontario with a roughly net decline of 11 percent in those years.

Although they have fluctuated, but they have fluctuated almost steadily from year to year in terms of reductions or increases; the only time that there was a difference was in 19 77 where Ontario dropped and Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta gained, and in 19 80 where Alberta and Ontario had a slight gain and Ma ni toba and Saskatchewan had a further decl ine in cattle num bers. Mr.

Chairman, it points out to me tha t the four provinces, over the five-year period, had relatively, with the exception of Saskatchewan which took a larger decline in cattle numbers - their numbers declined to a greater degree, almost double the other provinc es - and yet this Min ister of Agricultur e is prepared to get up and make statements that are not only misleading but are totally inaccurate. They are inaccurate because they do no t show the picture whatever.

I have the statistics available; I have done the additions and subtractions and tried to arrive at a figure where the cattle numbers of Manitoba have disappeared and how the impact of the Beef Income Assurance Plan somehow made cattle numb ers in Manitoba decline far greater than the rest of the country, and that hasn't happened. That hasn't happened, Mr. Chairman. The cattle numbers in the province of Manitoba have declined some 10 percent, which are virtually the same with the provinces of Alberta and Ontario. The province of Saskatchewan declined to a greater degree, Mr.

Chairman, than the province of Manitoba. In fact, if anything, the Income Assurance Plan had the reverse effect on cattle numb ers, a complete reverse effect in terms of cattle numb ers in the province of Manitoba. We would have seen cattle numbers reduced to such an extent that the cattle numbers today in Manitoba would have virtually, I would say, gone beyond what Saskatchewan has gone in terms of reductions. The impact occurred greatest, Mr. Speaker, in 19 77. That's when the program really proved itself, Mr. Chairman, and I want to show you.

In 19 76, the province of Manitoba, from 19 75 to 1976, there was a 38,000 drop in cattle numbers in the province of Manitoba; a drop of 55,000 in Saskatchewan; a drop of 27 ,OOO in Al berta; and a drop of 57 ,OOO in Ontario. That's two peaks years when the program started going in. In 19 77, the real low in terms of cattle prices, what we saw was that Manitoba's cattle popu lation at tha t time not only sta bili zed, it increased by 103,000, while Saskatchewan increased by a relatively small margin, in terms of cattle num bers, of 45 ,000.

That shows that Mani toba in creased 9 percent over 19 76; Saskatchewan increased 1 1/ 2 percent; Alberta had a 2 1/ 2 percent increase; and Ontario had a net decrease of roughly 1 percent. So while the eastern provinces and two western provinces had marginal increases, if any, in 1977, Manitoba's cattle population was maintained in 19 77 to the tune of stability of at least 9 percent, almost, Mr. Chairman, to the point of maintaining the cattle herds in terms of increases 10 to 1 in terms of maintaining and retaining the herds on the farms of Manitoba. 3312

Tuesday,6 May, 1980 Contrary to what the Minister has been saying, the program, if anything, has had a stabilizing effect on producers and retaining the cattle numbers.

I wish the Minister would either come up with the figures that he spoke about, or withd raw and apologize to the producers that he has misled the farmers of Mani toba and has gone ahead and made his misinformed and ill-advised statements that he has made before in terms of not only the cattle industry, but in other sectors of agriculture in terms of orderly marketing and the like, that he should withdraw his statements that he has made and apologize to the producers that he has misled them down the line and misled not only the producers but members of this House, in terms of the statements that he has given. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Ho nourable Minister. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, when it comes to misleading members of the House, I think that we should talk back to the Member for St. George and make sure that he is not allowed to mislead the public. First of all, the figures that we referred to were a reduction in beef cow numbers and for the Member for St. George, who maybe doesn't understand that it takes a beef cow to have a beef calf, and I think that if you lose that base that is your production base, then in fact you run into a lot of problems.

We saw the numbers of beef cows being reduced in the province of Manitoba, where in fact producers were having to pay back the results of their efforts because of a program which -(I nterjection)- No, Mr. Chairman - we're being interjected here - the fact is that we are trying to admin ister a program which was a disaster from the beginning. I will say to the members opposite that there was a certain amount of funds required by the beef ind ustry. That money that was paid out went to people who were in need.

When we came to a particular time when they were enjoying some profits in the industry, that in fact those particular producers who were relying most heavily on the cattle industry found themselves in a distressed situation where, in fact, if they didn't have incomes from grains or oil seeds or other types of livestock production, they in fact found it a severe hardship in having to either pay back the province some money or, in fact, give the numbers of cattle back that the members opposite think they should have done in the program. Mr. Chairman, we have the member for St. George suggesting that . . .

We have tried to work and have been fairly successful, I would say, working along with the producers to work our way through this particular program. I would think that if the Member for St.

George wants to go into any agricultural commun ity where there are a large num ber of livestock producers and suggest that they should be carr ying on with the program as they were administering it, putting themselves in the position of having to collect the money back or having cattle put back into the hands of the province, that I would welcome to a debate in any forum that they would in fact, I think, give him somewhat of a hard time. I have met with many groups of farmers, the producers, the people representing producers, who in fact pleaded to me to allow them to get out of the program.

We have taken the steps that I feel are responsible, Mr. Chairman. I could make further comments, and I don't want to be in a position of being overly critical of the program. I think that we have all tried to make the best out of a situation that we found ourselves in, tha t the prod ucers fou nd the mselves in, and something that was put in place with good intent by the last government. I don't think that the money went anywhere that it wasn't needed, and I feel that was the case. But we were faced, Mr.

Chairman, with the situation, as the Member for Lac du Bonnet has pointed out and I pointed it out in my opening statement, the problem of cash shortage in the community, of people facing high interest rates and either having to give cattle back to the province or paying funds back, as in fact are interpreted by people in the legal department of the Attorney­ General's office. The administration of the program has been as consistent as possible.

The fact is, we raised the cost of production so that it eased some of the pressure from the producers, that in fact the last admin istration - and I don't want to be taken as totally critical - reduced the cost of production to the producers. Mr. Chairman, they reduced the cost of production on beef cattle from 51 cents to 49, based on a formula, Mr. Chairman. The formula happened to be . . .

And we all know that they talk about inflation and the cost to producers; we all kno w tha t the costs of production have been consistently going higher for the last 10 years, that in fact that didn't change in October of 1977, that we have seen a continual inc rease in the cost of producing of agricultural goods, particularly where - (Interjection)- Well, no, Mr. Chairman, we are using the same formula consistent with what it was at the time of the last government. That formula, Mr.

Chairman, something happened that when they were admin istering, they reduced the cost of production to the produc ers from 51 to 49 cents on the slaughtered cattle. It's all on record; they know that's what happened. No, they didn't reduce the formula, Mr. Chairman, but in fact, however they worked the formula, it provided less returns to the farmer under the program that they had introduced. They can't sit here and accuse me of not trying to make the program work within the farm community. The cost of production was raised from 51; I believe it is at 61 cents at this particular time, Mr. Chairman.

The cost of production on the stock calves has moved from 59 cents to 76 a pound on the stock calves. Everything we have done has been to help those producers that are in the contract to assure the province of Manitoba, the taxpayers, that there is a commitment to the province, that there should be some money paid back to the province, and as has been indi cated by the way in which we have admin istered and moved with our policy in this program, that it in fact has been acceptable. What are the longer terms, and I think that is what we have to look at.

I am a strong believer in this country that when it comes to nationa lly-produced commodities that the federal government should have the responsibility of admin istering a national program on stabilization. I think if we, as provinces, come to und ersand that and support it fully, then we 3313

Tuesday,6 May, 1980 won't run into the problems of us having our natural advantage taken away from us by other provincial treasuries getting involved in the production of agricultural goods, distorting the natural use of our energies that we have in this total nation. I am a firm believer in that. I think that we have to work towards - and that's why I don't want to get overly involved in the debate in the Beef Income Assurance Program. Well, I would debate it, but it is the future of the Stabilization Program that we have to look at.

In fact, we do want to get involved and work with the federal government on one that is in fact going to work. Let 's remember what the objective of the process should be; it is to work with the interests of the producers in mind, that we in fact -(Int erjection)- There's a snort comes from the Member for St. George.

I am really amazed at him because when you have 3,000-and-some producers - and those figures are available - 3,000-and­ some producers who are still in a program, wanting to get out, and we can't work on a new program, or I feel that we should have the last one at least resolved or know where we are going with it before we start introducing new programs from the federal government, that in fact we are clearing the way to give security to the farmers who are producing beef cattle, at the national level, with participation or with inp ut from the provincial go vernment and the producers of this province.

I can see that kind of a process now taking place. We met with the federal Minister several weeks ago and the number one item, and the Member for Lac du Bonnet suggests what has taken place, the number one item was the cost of moneys to the producers of agricultural goods. Another item that is high on the agenda, as far as I am concerned, is to get direction from him and to work with him on dir ection, to look at a new federal stabilization program. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The hour being 4:30, I am leaving the Chair for Private Members' Hour. No committee tonight. Commit tee rise. SUPPL V - HEAL TH MR.

CHAIRMAN, Abe Kovnats (Radisson): This committee will come to order. I would direct the honourabe members' attention to Page 61 of the Main Estimates, Department of Health, Resolution No. 79, Cla use 5, Ma nitoba Health Services Commission, Item (

d) Medical Program- pass - the Honourable Member for Transcona. MR. WILSON PARASIUK: Mr. Chairperson, there are some major issues, I think, facing the province with respect to this particular program and I think one of the major issues is the attitude of the doctors towards Medicare. This came out very directly, very gr aphic ally, when the Hall Commis sion was in Manitoba in the month of March. The Manitoba Medical Association presented a brief to the Hall Commission which, in my estimation, did not serve their purposes well, if they have any purposes to serve whatsoever.

The Mini ster talks about the doctors somehow losing status and in addition to loosing relative incomes; I dispute whether in fact they've lost any relative income over the last 20 years, but if they have lost any status, I think maybe a number of profe ssional gr oups have lost status inc luding professors, lawyers and other people. But I think that if the doctors are complaining about losing any status, they deserve to lose some status if one judges them on the basis of their submission to the Hall Commission. It was one that was self-serving, narrow and, frankly, did not take the public interest into account.

It made a case for flexible billing and it said that since the public is putting too little money into Medicare that somehow private patients through surcharges, which is really what they talk about when they're talking about flexible billing, should put extra money in. That is a position that certainly is opposed completely by people on this side of the House.

We do not believe in two standards of health care, although the doctors really are promoting two standards of health care, one for rich and one for the poor, because I can assure you that those people who would pay the surcharges would receive a different quality care from those people who wouldn't pay the surcharges. The Minister has said, at the same time, that the government isn't in favor of flexible billing but, while saying that, he says that the doctors have a number of objections which have to be listened to.

I am wondering abou t how serious the Mi ni ster's commitment is when he says that this government will not promote flexible billing, indeed extra billing, on the part of the doctors. We have a fairly low percentage of opted out doctors but my feeling is that if in fact that percentage increases and that we get much more extra billing tha t we should start following the practice or we should consider following the practice in Quebec, where opted out doctors are opted out of Medicare entirely and they receive no public moneys for Medicare at all.

I don't think we're at that particular critical situation but, given the approach that the doctors are taking, I hope that they do not carry things to that particular conclusion because I think that is the conclusion that the public would be forced to take. I would like to get a clearer state