ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on AGRICULTURE 31-32 Elizabeth 11 Chairman Mr. A. Anstett Constituency of Springfield VOL. XXXI No. 17 - 8:00 p.m., TUESDAY, 26 JULY, 19 83. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Provmce of Man;toba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Andy ASHTON, Sieve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) SLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q.C.; Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOUR LAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, O.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Mur iel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samue.l WALDING, Hon. D. James Constitu ency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minn edosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Chu rchill St. Bon iface Aiel Elm wood Kildonan Arthu r Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Ru ssell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mou ntain Burrows Rossmere ln kster Fort Garry Os borne River Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP IND NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 TIME - 8:00 p.m. LOCATION -Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRMAN -Mr. Andy Anstett (Springfield) ATTENDANCE -QUORUM - 6 Members of the committee present: Hon. Messrs. Adam, Bucklaschuk, Parasiuk, Uruski and Uskiw, Messrs. Anstett, Downey, Gou rlay and Manness WITNESSES: Representations were made to the committee as follows: Bill No. 90,

An Act to amend The Cattle Producers Association Act Mr. Peter Friesen, Manitoba Cattle Prod ucers Association Ms. Margaret Soper, Consu mers' Association of Canada Ms. Charlene Graham for Mr. Dave Fulton, Manitoba Cattle Prod ucers Association Mr . Dou g McL aren, Manitoba Cattle Prod ucers Association Mr . Terry Eyjolfson, Manitoba Cattle Prod ucers Association Mr. Thad Snow, Manitoba Cattle Prod ucers Association Mr . Go ody Sigu rdson, Ma nitoba Cattle Produ cers Association Mr. Wayne Dawydiuk, Private Citizen Mr. John Whitaker, National Farmers Union, Local 516 Mr.

Keith Proven, National Farmers Union, Region 5 Mr . Jim Bu nd, Manitoba Beef Cattle Performance Association Mr. Earl Geddes, Manitoba Farm Bu reau Mr. Bob Mu nroe, Manitoba Cattle Prod ucers Association WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Mr . Alien Cham bers, Manitoba Cattle Prod ucers Association Mr . Darcy Hickson, Keystone Simmental Association Mr. Ken Barron, Private Citizen BILL NO. 7-

An Act to amend The Dairy Act Mr . Robert DeMyer and Mr. Tom Dooley, Milk Produ cers Marketing Board MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill No. 90 -

An Act to amend The Cattle Prod ucers Associ ation Act, passed withou t amendment, on division 424 Bill No. 7 -

An Act to amend The Dairy Act, passed as amended, on division Bill No. 6 -

An Act to amend The Pesticides and Fertilizer Control Act, passed as amended, on division MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, we have a quorum . Would the committee come to order, please? At our hour of adjournment at 12 :30 today, Mr . Peter Friesen was in the process of presenting his brief. I'd like to call on Mr. Friesen to continue. I'd like to point ou t to Mr . Friesen and other delegations to the committee and committee members that we still have a long list.

I don't in any way want to suggest to anyone making presentations that they shouldn't cover the points they want to make - I think they should - but I think for the benefit of expediting the business of the committee, it would be preferred that they only cover them once or twice, not three or four times, which we sometimes tend to do when we're speaking in public. I know Members of the Legislature do it more often than most. Mr. Downey. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I have a question, as well as a comment to make.

The question is: does the Minister of Agricultu re plan to sit and hear all these bri efs this ev ening or do es he plan to have this committee sit at another time to hear the briefs, because we do have a large number of people? MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think the Minister heard your qu estion. Did the Minister hear the question? Is it your intention to try and complete the business of the committee this evening or would you contemplate calling a second meeting? Mr . Downey is asking. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, depending on the time and the will of the committee, it would be my hope that we could, tonight, finish all the presentations at the very least and then seeing the hou r, could decide how we proceed with the legislation. As the member knows, The Dairy Act and The Pesticides Act are generally rou tine, un less they have some major concerns and the bill, where there may be a fair bit of discussion amongst members, is Bill 90 and it is not a lengthy piece of legislation but it depends on the members. MR. J. DOWNEY: A second point I wanted to make. If, Mr.

Chairman, we were not to finish the briefs this evening, it was brought to my attention at the break at lu nchtime, that the Consu mers' Association of Canada, the Manitoba Branch, were unable to come at another time and maybe we could accommodate

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 them by hearing them this evening, if in fact we weren't going to finish this evening. I believe I'm correct in those comments. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I think we should proceed in the hope that we would, at the very least, complete all the presentations tonight. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Downey, I, as your Chairman, would be willing to entertain a motion, after Mr. Friesen has completed his presentation, to advance anyone or group of other people who are on the list to a preferre d position if that's your intention. Mr . Downey. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr .

Cha irman, no t wanting to inconvenience people who have travelled from a long distance, but if we may be able to move the Consume rs' Association up somewhat on the list to make sure th ey get on this evening, I think it would be appreciated and I would make that motion that we accommodate them so they can be heard this evening. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you be willing, Mr. Downey, to hold your motion until Mr. Friesen has finished his presentation? MR. J. DOWNEV: Yes I would, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Fri esen would you please come forward? Please proceed. MR. P. FRIESEN: Mr.

Chairman, I must admit that a thing like this has never happened to me that I got cut off in the middle of presentation. I'm not completely sure of how many of the points I did cover and I realize it's unfair for me to ask you to replay ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Friesen, at 12 :30 you said you had covered the first two of five points, and you had three more to go. That was why we didn't continue for another five or 10 minutes, because you said you might be taking a little while. MR. P.

FRIESEN: Well, I would like to excuse myself if I do repeat myself on a couple of things, and I hope the producers in my area excuse me if I forget a couple of points that they wanted me to bring out. I think I was almost finished with the point as to what the MCPA does in regards to the province, so I will continue a little further on. Bill 90, in the opinion of most of us producers, strips our organization of any ability to work. it has been brought out here a numbe r of times that if the producers support an organization they should be willing to fund it in any way at all.

I would like to bring out the point that we have a unique organization. We have an organization that is supporte d by all the cattle producers in Manitoba. The cattle producers in Manitoba vary in size. We have full support by some producers that only sell three or four animals a year; we also have good support from the producers that sell 4,000, 5,000, and 10, 000 animals a year. lt is not fair to a producer that only prod uces five or six animals a year, that he would have to pay the same membership as a producer that produ ces 425 5, 000 or 6, 000 head a year.

The way our organization is set up every producer pays equally, according to the numbe r of cattle he sells. This is what makes our organization unique . In my area there are a lot of producers, I suppose, just like me, not too well educated, but they're not fools. If you take away the checkoff the way it stands today, I would be a fool if I paid a checkoff on every head of cattle that I sold, if I had no reasonable assurance that at le ast 75 percent of the othe r producers in Manitoba didn't also pay the same thing.

If there's anybody on this committee that thinks that just because I believe in the organization I should pay my full amount even though I have no guarantee or no reasonable assurance that 25 or 30 percent of th e producers pay it, I would say that member is a fool. Produce rs - (Inte rjection) - MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue, Mr. Friesen. MR. P. FRIESEN: Produce rs will not pay a checkoff on a voluntary basis that they have to drive around and collect. What Bill 90 does is it strips it of the power to have the checkoff collected at source. HON. B. URUSKI: Wh ere does it do that? MR. P. FRIESEN: Pardon me?

If you have any particular questions, I'll answer them after I'm finished. lt was mentioned here that you had a lot of presentations to present, so I'm going to try and cut it short. I'm going to sort of summarize a little bit. A lot of producers are asking, why was this bill presented in the first place? What does the governm ent expect from the MCPA by producing such a bill? This bill, all it does as far as we're concerned, unle ss there's something we don't realize, it amends Bill C-25.

Bill C-25 gives us the directions, it tells us what to do, and Bill 90 strips us of the funding to do just those very things that we are require d to do by law unde r Bill C- 25. As I mentioned before, I'm no fool and I'm not going to pay a check off unle ss I have a reasonable guarantee that at least th e majority of other producers are also paying the same and on all cattle, not just on a few head. So, that would mean there would be absolutely no funds to carry on the programs that we have today.

Does this then mean that the government, through our new stabilization committee or stabilization commission, that they would be willing to carry on some of these programs? Why would they carry on these programs whe n the prod ucers are willin g to pay for the m the mselves? The governm ent has never explained to the producers why this bill was presented, except that it has told us on a numbe r of occasions that there have been 2,000 people that have asked for a different type of a checkoff, which is strictly a misinterpretation. With that, I think I'll close to make room for other presentations. Thank you. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Friesen.

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 Any questions by mem bers of the committee for Mr. Friesen? Mr. Uruski. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr . Chairman, can I ask Mr. Friesen. where does Bill 90 specifically remove the provision to collect a checkoff at source? MR. P. FRIESEN: lt removes the power to collect the checkoff through the selling agencies. HON. B. URUSKI: No. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Friesen maybe should be aware that while it removes the power to enforce the checkoff, it does not remove that ability of the association to have a checkoff at source, which would have to be negotiated with whomever they wish on behalf of their mem bers.

If their members agree to a checkoff at source, the bill does not prevent that. I just want to make sure that he understands that. Are you aware of that? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Friesen. MR. P. FRIESEN: So what you are saying is that if the association would want to carry on, or try to carry on, they would have to put somebody at every selling point to collect a checkoff. Is that what you're saying? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr .

Chairman, the association will have the right to set up whatever mechanism its mem bers agree to, whether they wanted to put a member at source or whether they wanted to make an agreement with someone, as they have now, makes no difference, but they have that right. What you said is that the bill removes the provision to collect the checkoff at source, if I understood you correctly. What I am saying is, it doesn't remove that right. MR. P. FRIESEN: lt removes the power to get the auction marts and the packing houses, all the selling agencies. to collect it on our behalf. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr .

Chairman, what is removed is the power of the association to say you have to do it. lt doesn' t remove the right of the association to go and negotiate and do it on behalf of its members. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions for Mr. Friesen? Mr . Downey. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Friesen. We have a hard time as opposition in trying to find out precisely where the motivation came from for this kind of action that is being taken within Bill 90. Are you aware of any resolution or motion passed by any organization in the past few months that would instigate this kind of action? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Friesen. MR. P.

FRIESEN: The only motions that I am aware of are in regards to making the checkoff compulsory so that there would be no refunds. There have been numerous allocations or accusations made that there were a lot of people unhappy with the organization and asking for refunds. Since the period for refunds has just gone by and we have now a clear numb er as to how many produ cers actually wanted a refund and how many producers don' t support it, it clearly points out that it is not a request by any producers. Personally , I think ever ybody here knows that I am not involved with any political party.

I have always considered myself as an independent and really only get involved with things that I know about, mainly the cattle business, but I do follow political conventions, and I do recall at the last NDP Political Convention, there was a motion passed that they do away with the MCP checkoff. So I would gather that the motivation was not made by cattle producers, but by a political party. This is what makes it so hard for producers to unde rstand why a political party would want to do away with an organization that is strictly funded by producers. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Further questions for Mr . Friesen? Seeing none, Mr . Friesen, on behalf of the committee, thank you very much for appearing. Mr. Downey has made the suggestion that Margaret Soper of the Consumers' Association of Canada be heard next. Is that agreed? (Agreed) Ms. Margaret Soper, please. 426 MS. M. SOPER: Mr . Chairman, mem bers of the committee, I am Margaret Soper of the Consumers' Association, Manitoba. I have handed to the Clerk a copy of our brief. I apologize for the quality of the copy. I think our copier decided it was too hot, and did us in somewhat.

I would like to thank the other speakers who were to have come before me this even ing for allowing me to be out of line and speak first. The Consumers' Association of Canada, (CAC), Manitoba welcomes the opportunity to appear before the Agriculture Comm ittee to respond to the proposed amendment to The Cattle Producers Association Act, that is Bill 90. CAC is a national, voluntary association of approximately 150,000 members across Canada and 7,600 members in Manitoba.

The association is involved in many activities, including the analysis of consumer problems, the preparation of recommendations for their solution and the presentation of consumers' views to government and industry. This brief was prepared by the Agricultur e Comm ittee of CAC Manitoba in consultation with its Board of Directors. CAC Manitoba questions the intent of the Government of Manitoba to change drastically the structure of the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association. The MCPA, funded by the producers themselves, has performed many useful functions for Manitoba citizens since its inception in 19 78.

Consumers have been well served by its research into such areas as feed conversion and production and care of cattle. This research has helped to increase efficiency, quality and continuity of supply. Two-and-a-half years ago, the MCPA instituted a Beef Information Centre in Manitoba, which is funded by one-half of the automatic checkoff, and is one of six Information Centres in Canada suppor ted by Canadian cattlemen. Its staff, including a home economist, has been accommodating and helpful when approached by

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 CAC, and indeed the general public for information. They have alerted CAC to matters of mutual concern and their news releases have proven informative. CAC feels that the present method of support for the MCP A is sensible and dem ocratic. Producers appreciate that the automatic checkoff alleviates the need for fund-raising and allows the association to concentrate on more worthwhile programs. Last year, the refunds requested at year end totalled only 7 percent of the money collected and we heard this morning were only asked by less than 2 percent of producers.

That suggests to CAC that a large majority are satisfied with the amount of the checkoff, its method of collection and the pur poses for which it is used. Although consumers derive benefits from the checkoff, it does not add to the consumer price, but comes directly from the producers' pockets. Manitoba cattlemen are contending that removal of the automatic checkoff would mean an end to the viabil ity of their organiza tion, and this stance is supported by the experience in Saskatchewan when a change similar to that now being proposed in Manitoba was implemented there.

Although only 1 percent of Saskatchewan produ cers had requested refu nds, removal of the automatic checkoff resulted in a 60 to 65 percent dro p-off in funding. lt should be noted that the Saskatchewan Government has taken steps to return to a system of automatic refu ndable checkoff at point of sale. The Cattle Produc ers Assoc iation Act is comprehensive legislation covering many facets of the cattle producer indust ry. We are puzzled by some of the proposed deletions by repeal, and we'd like to know what will take their place.

CAC Manitoba suggests that the government realizes these proposed changes are not popular with producers as no plebiscite has been held to determine their views although one has been requested. The MCPA president, Larry Clifford, has predicted that his association will be destroyed if Bill 90 is passed. Cattlemen have stated that they fear these changes will result in additional government control and introduction of a suppl y management function. In 19 76, as we heard again this morning, beef producers rejected overw helmingly the proposed marketing board.

What form would an alternative beef producers' association take, and how would it serve it consumers? Is Bill 90 a step in a plan to introduce a provincial beef marketing board? Certainly consumers have much to fear from marketing boards, particularly when they are given monopolistic powers of supply management. Supply management requir es that commodities be produced within a quota system. CAC feels that beef is not a suitable commodity for quota production due to the impossibility of forecasting future consumer demand and based on the three-year production period.

The evils of quota values which arise in supply management systems distort the true price of product to both producer and consumer. Values increase as entry is restricted and these can prove devastating to future generations of potential producers. Marketing boards interfere in interprovincial trade and reduce competition from other provinces both in exports and im ports. They pr om ote inefficienc y, and cost of production formulae generally are artificial. This is particularly true when applied to beef production with 427 its many variables.

Monopolies result in lower quality of pr oduc t and high er prices due to increased administrative costs. Manitoba consumers want a continuing supply of good quality beef at a reasonable price and access to information, which will allow them to make wise beef purchases. CAC Manitoba feels that the consumers' concerns are being addressed by the present voluntary producers' program, and would like Bill 90 to be withdrawn. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Soper. Any questions for Ms. Soper from members of the committee? Mr. Uruski. HON. B. URUSKI: Ms.

Soper, in your comments on this bill, you make mention of what I would say, in your opinion, is the great disservice that marketing boards are doing. I reject those comments, and I wonder why you would pull in marketing boards in an area of an association bill such as this? Why would you drag the other producers in this country into this argument? MS. M. SOPER: Mr. Minister, I mentioned that we are puzzled as to why this bill deletes so much of the previous act, and we had to question what was the purpose of the government in proposing this bill.

We suspected, we do not know, that it possibly could be because they had in mind introducing a marketing board, and therefore we felt we had to address that issue. Now to refer to your first question - why are we concerned about marketing boards and why do we feel that they do not serve consumers. lt has been well documented.

I would refer you to a study done for the Economic Council of Canada, and in their report of a year-and-a-half ago, what has happened at the national level with the feat her agencies, and ho w much consumers are paying, above and beyond what they should be paying, because of the costs of marketing boards and because of the supply -management function. There are many many studies done. I haven't brought them this evening. I'm sure you have them as well. HON. B.

URUSKI: Well, there have been as many studies done in support of the management system and the consumers have been well served in all areas where the boards have played a role in terms of No. 1, guaranteeing a reasonable income to producers, which I assume you have no difficulty with in the sale of their product; and No. 2, guaranteeing consumers a continued steady supply of good food on the shelf, without any sho rtages and without any averages. MS. M. SOPER: You mentioned a reasonable income to produ cers - that has always been a stance of the Consumers' Associa tion.

We realize that if the producer does not have a reasonable income, they're not going to be around, so certainly we would support that premise. As far as a continuing and steady supply without averages, I wonder why there's a surplus removal function in some of the cost of production formulas, if indeed, there is no overage? I also would ask you

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 how you feel about the value of quotas, and again I would refer you to that same study, where it quotes the quota values as being in the hun dreds of thousands of dollars, depending on which product you're talking about? MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I think it's encouraging to see the Consumers' Association come out in support of a producer organization and I think that's the kind of co-operation that has been strived for over many years, that it appears now as if we have the current government again causing a rift between those two organizations.

I would again go back and ask you a question. Have you been satisfied with the working relationship between your organization, the Consumers' Organization, and the Cattle Producers to better both the lot of the cattle produ cer, and as well to encourage and to make sure that people are aware of the kind of commodity that they produce? Are you satisfied, since the introduction of the Cattle Producers Association, that there has been a good working relationship? MS. M. SOPER: There has been a good working relationship. I wouldn' t say we have approved of every decision that they have taken.

We have been quite happy, as I mentioned in my presentation, with the Beef Information Centre. We've been well served by their home economist. We are delighted at their research program. We have looked at their financial statements and have seen the amounts of money that they have contributed to such organizations as VETO. They also have contributed funds to the Canadian Cattlemen Association and their memb erships in the Manitoba Farm Bu reau and the Canadian Federa tion of Agriculture. In those areas, yes, we feel we have been well served. MR. J. DOWNEV: Mr .

Chairman, with the removal of this organ ization, as been stated earlie r by the president, and in fact to use his terminolo gy, would destroy or to virtually gut the operation or the organization, which he is a member and the president of. You have indicated that you've used the services of the association through market information, through the Beef Promotion Program, through the support for the Infectious Diseases Organization in Saskatoon - many contributions that have been made to the industry by producer mone y.

If this organ ization becomes defunct, would you expect the government to put those funds in place, so those services are available to both the consumers and the industry? MS. M. SOPER: We would like these services to continue. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well the question would be: where would the funds come from, if they don't come from the cattle producers, if it is in fact destroyed? MS. M. SOPER: The Consumers' Association would prefer that the producers pay for the services. MR. J.

DOWNEY: Again, if that is not in place and the mechanism isn't there to fund that, would it not be 428 correct that the government would have to put those funds in place, being a further burden on the taxpayers of the problems? MS. M. SOPER: That would be a distinct possibility. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Uskiw. HON. S.

USKIW: Getting back to your statement with respect to the role and operation of marketing boards, which is not what is before this comm ittee, but notwithstanding you have chosen to mention it in your brief, are you aware that your association suppor ted the introduction and development of marketing boards? MS. M. SOPER: I am aware that our association has stated there are functions of marketing boards that do provide a service to consumers. Our policy on marketing boards is quite complex, it's not that simple.

What we have said is, we feel that marketing boards can provide continuing supply of good quality product. However, what we are specifically addressing here is the supply­ management function of marketing boards, which our association has never supported. Now you said that we raised the issue of marketing boards. We did so, simply because the bill does not state really what the Cattlemens Association would be allowed to do. We are concerned by the amount of repeal in this act, and really our reason for raising this issue was to ask the government what is it that you are proposing? We don't know; we're puzzled.

HON. S. USKIW: Just to get back to the position of the Consumers' Association and marketing boards, I can recall, very vividly, presentations made before a simila r comm ittee of the Legislature of Manitoba, supporting the setting up of marketing boards and the basis of the need to provide stability of income to producers. That goes back many years by the way, but I recall that kind of presentation from the Consumers' Association of Canada. I' m just wondering whether there's been a change of mind on the part of the Consumers' Association in recent years? MS. M.

SOPER: I would like to say to the Minister that I go back a few years too. HON. S. USKIW: But don't admit it. MS. M. SOPER: And also in my association with the Consumers' Association, more years than I care to admit. I would also repeat what I said before - yes we have suppor ted the continuity of supply; we have supported a reasonable income to producers. We have never suppor ted the supply-management function in marketing boards. Unless I am mistaken, I don' t believe there is a market. Is there a marketing board in Manitoba that has a supply-management function? HON. S. USKIW: Many of them.

A MEMBER: That's what I want to ask you. MS. M. SOPER: Well, it's interesting that the Manitoba Hog Producers, the Manitoba Vegetable Producers, and

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 the Manitoba Egg Producers Marketing Board all suppor ted the MCPA in their letters. HON. S. USKIW: Well, perhaps maybe we should dwell on it a bit. Are you aware that the Egg Producers Marketing Board has a supply management . . . ? MS. M. SOPER: They have a supply, because they're one of the feather industries and they are tied in with the national agency. All right, I erred. HON. S. USKIW: The turkey producers. MS. M. SOPER: I should have mentioned that, that those tied in with the national agencies, of course, have a supply management. HON. S.

USKIW: Okay, let's go with one that isn't tied in. Are you not aware that the Vegetable Producers Marke ting Boar d has a qu ota sys tem, supply management, and is intra-Manitoba, intra-provi ncial, not interprovincial? MS. M. SOPER: In some commodities, yes, they do. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the only other one. Mr. Uskiw. HON. S. USKIW: I have a problem with the premise in which you support the existence of an organization that was put into being by way of a legislative act. I question that from an ethical point of view.

Do you believe sincerely that it's right for the Legislature of any province in Canada or for the Parliament of Canada to pass

an act that says that you or I must belong to some assoc iation in principle? Forget about the operations of it, just in principle, do you think that's a good principle to enshrine? MS. M. SOPER: it's an excellent question, of course. Speaking of the principle, if you held a plebiscite and those involved, the majority said, yes, they wish to belong to that organization, then I think that is fair. HON. S. USKIW: You would then agree that if there were a plebiscite, a referendum wherein a specific plan was before the voters, and they voted for a specific measure, that then the majority should carry the day? MS. M.

SOPER: I think we have to remember here that this is a refu ndable checkoff we're talking about. HON. S. USKIW: Oh yes, yes, I'm aware of that. That doesn't detract though from the principle that we are talking about. Should you put people in society in a position where they have to opt out? That is an infringement of my rights, and I have to say publicly that I don't want to belong to the same association as Mr . Downey belongs to.

I think that's an infringement of my personal freedom and privacy, but you are forcing me to make that public statement that I don't wish to belong. it's what they call the peer pressure syndrome. Are you not concerned about that? MS. M. SOPER: I think it's a fact of life. 429 HON. S. USKIW: Okay.

If then we passed a measure in this Assem bly requiring you to belong - let's assume that we came to the conclusion that there are too many farm organ izations in Mani toba, which is what a legislative committee concluded some years ago in this province - and we said, henceforth, there shall only be one speaking for all the farmers of Manitoba. This Legislature will pass a bill that says every farmer in Manitoba belongs to that association unless they opt out. Would you support that? MS. M. SOPER: After you have held a plebiscite and after a reasonable majority have said, yes.

I might suggest to you, if you're concerned about their rights, why don't you hold a plebiscite on this bill? HON. S. USKIW: Would you then agree with me that this legislation had no business being put on the statute books of Manitoba without the wishes expressed by the people whom are, by this legislation, members of this association? MS. M. SOPER: I would think it's wise always, when passing legislation of this sort, to do so on the wishes of those who would be involved. HON. S. USKIW: I'v e just established that you didn't do it right, Jim. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Bucklaschuk. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. Ms. Soper, as the spokesperson for the Consumers' Association of Canada, Manitoba section, could you tell us what consu ltation you'v e had with the membership of the Manitoba members concerning your position on the Cattle Producers Association? MS. M. SOPER: Yes, I would be delighted to tell you. We have an Agricultural Committee of 10, half of whom are producers or former producers. The other half are composed of former provincial presidents and university producers and just citizens like you and me. The original brief was written.

The draft was sent out to all of our provincial board members who were given approximately three-and-a-half weeks to respond, many of whom did after consulting with their locals and with their community. Then the final draft of the brief was written, recirculated, and you have it before you. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: That doesn't quite answer my question, I guess, because I have been a member of the association for many years . . . MS. M. SOPER: And you didn't receive a copy? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Pardon me? And I have not received a copy. I was ju st wondering what the consultation process was.

I'll leave that as it is. MS. M. SOPER: I would like to answer it. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: You want to answer that? MS. M. SOPER: Certainly. l would like to know what organization circulates the dr aft of every brief at every

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 presentation they make to every member regardless of what their membership is. As I indicated to you, ours is an average of 7,600 mem bers. We have newsletters in Manitoba which are sent to every member from time to time, and nationally we have our magazine which is printed once a month. We get quite a considerable response to both. We also receive some 8,000 or 9,000 phone calls a year. When we speak out of line and the public doesn't like it, belie ve me, we hear about it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order , order please.

The fans are going; there is some wind, but there is more wind coming from members around the table, and I'm having some difficulty hearing the witness. I would ask members, who want to carry on private conversations, to do so outside this room and out of the earshot of those who are trying to listen. Mr. Bucklaschuk. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Ms. Soper, with respect to membership in an association, which do you think would be the preferable: voluntary membership or compulsory membership? MS. M. SOPER: Are you sugge st ing about the Consumers' Association? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: No, I'm now back to the cattle producers.

I volunt eered to become a member of that; I wasn't compelled. MS. M. SOPER: I think that ther e are many associations, be they trade unions, be they professional associations or be they producer associations that have to speak and have to be a viable advocacy organization. I think I have already stated that there should be a vote among the members. and there should be a substantial majority that agree to membership in that association. In this particular instance, we are dealing with a refu ndable check off.

If the members are not happy with that, then certainly they have many mechanisms open to them to state their displeasure. lt's interesting to note that less than 2 percent have done so. That was certainly a factor in CAC's decision in speaking to this, but the more important factor was not what this would do to the MCPA, quite frankly, it was what it would do to consumers. We were not sure what you had in mind to replace the MCPA; ther efore. we felt we had to speak to this. because of our fear of a marketing board with supply management function. HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Just to continue on that, you made reference to professional associations, trade unions and so on. Can you name any professional group or trade union group that has legislated a requirement that each person be a member of that association? MR. H. ENNS: Lawyers, doctors, Government of Saskatchewan on this program. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I can certainly speak for teachers, having been a teacher for many years . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Mr. Bucklaschuk, would you continue? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I'll make reference to one such association, and that is the teaching profession.

One does not have to be a member of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. MS. M. SOPER: You did when I was a teacher. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: No, you don't. You have the option of writing yourself out at the beginning. MR. D. ORCHARD: Don' t these people have that? HON. J. BUCK LASCH UK: No. I want to refer specifically to the one sentence, "The CAC feels the present method of support for the MCP A is sensible and democratic." Ms. Soper, you' ve made reference on a numb er of occasions to the provision that producers are able to get a refu nd.

Have you made any study of the mechanism that is inv olved in getting that refund? MS. M. SOPER: There was an allusion to that this morning on timing of the refu nd. That we did not check out. lt was our understanding, and perhaps we were misguided that if written notice was given, it would be honoured. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I wish it were only that simple, but we know that in fact it is much more difficult than that, and it is a fairly complex . . . 430 MS. M. SOPER: I would leave that to the members of the MCPA to address. HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: I presume it's the MCPA that drew up the rules as to how the refund is to be obtained and . . . MS. M. SOPER: I'm going to be follo wed by over 10 speakers from the MCPA; I'm sure one of them will answer that. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Perhaps they will address that.

One other question and that is with respect to a statement you make on Page 3, "CAC Mani toba suggests that the government realizes these proposed changes are not popular with producers." On the previous page you made reference to the Saskatchewan situation where the checkoff was made volunta ry and the checkoff dropped something like 60-65 percent. MS. M. SOPER: That was a direct quote taken from a newspaper article. I should have perhaps mentioned where I got the information. Certai nly again, and mem bers of the MCPA alluded to that this morning, I assume there must be some accuracy in the statement. HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Would it not suggest that with that magnitude of a dro p-off that, in fact, it would be popular to do away with the compulsory checkoff? MS. M. SOPER: I suppose I'm a firm believer that if you want something, you make it easy to acquire it.

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 Again, I really feel that this is out of our bailiwick. We were pointing out why we felt it was sensible; we suggested that an organization such as MCPA should be devoting their time, energies, and doll ars to fulfilling their mandate in terms of the beef information centre, in terms of research and so on, and we, in the Consumers' Associa tion, know very well, too well, that if you're spending all your time raising money, you're not doing much else. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Manness. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask a question related to the CAC.

I guess I share the feeling of Mr . Uskiw that possibly the Consumers' Association of Canada have maybe changed her a little bit, because I, at one time, was under the belief that they may have supported supply management systems also, almost to the extent that they allowed members from their group to sit on national agencies as directors. I'm not surprised if, in fact, that's happened.

There has been a change, because of course once you're sitting close to it you have a chance to observe what's happening; so it wouldn' t surprise me at all if the Consumers' Association of Canada were changing their stance somewhat to the general outlook as regards supply management. I'm trying to capture the essence of your brief, and is your main concern that if farmers or cattle producers do not support their own activities in a promotional sense, that indeed they'l l end up petitioning the government to bring forward supply management systems which will ultimately cost producers more?

Is that your concern basically? MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Soper. MS. M. SOPER: I would like to go back to what you mentioned in the first place when you said that CAC mem bers are mem bers of supply management committees, and I'd like to make it abundantly clear, they are not mem bers of the agencies- I'm now talking about national agencies - because they support those agencies; they are members because they feel they might be able to bring the consumer voice to the atten tion of the other mem bers.

We have rlever supported supply management and I want to make that point very stro ng; it inde ed would surprise me considerably to hear that we have changed. I should say to you that I'm not only the Agriculture Chairman in Manitoba, I'm the National Executive Vice­ President of CAC, so I believe that I speak for the national association as well as the provincial association.

As to your second question with regard to supply management, I think we made the point that in the beef industry, supply management is somewhat difficult because you're dealing with a three-year cycle, I think that point was made far more adequately than I am prepared to do this morning. Supply management is very difficult, perhaps more serious is your cost-of­ production formula, which would be very difficult to ascertain and we are concerned that when you have a cost-of-pro duction formula, you lower efficiency. MR. C. MANNESS: One final question, Mr. Chairman, and it comes right down to the nub of the issue.

Are 431 you concerned about production formula costing? Are you concerned specifically about one item that might come into it, mainly the cost of promotion? lt may be then that the consumers of Canada then may be expected to pick up. MS. M. SOPER: We are concerned about promotion and marketing costs. We feel that those costs should be paid for by the producer, because presumably they would not enter into a marketing program unless they expected to make an increased profit.

We are concerned with many facets of the cost-of-production formula, transportation costs, administrative costs, who is your average producer, what rate of efficiency are you expecting from them? Again, I would draw your attention to many studies that have been undertaken and I would be happy to give you a list of some of them and some direct quotes from some of them. I did not bring them with me this evening. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Mr. Uruski. HON. B. URUSKI: Ms. Soper, in your last page of your brief, you make the statment about monopolies resulting in lower quality of product.

I assume you eat eggs or chickens? MS. M. SOPER: Yes, Mr. Minister. HON. B. URUSKI: Has the quality diminished, in the last year or two, of the product that you have bought on the shelf? MS. M. SOPER: Certainly not in eggs, because I buy them from a producer whose operation is very small and he is not part of the marketing board. HON. B. URUSKI: And chicken? MS. M. SOPER: As for chickens, I have many concerns about chickens, one of which is salmonella, when we have to consider that two-thirds of all poultry bought contains active salmonella. I don't know whether you can blame that on the marketing boards however.

HON. B. URUSKI: Does that encourage you to purchase direct from vendors from door-to-door? MS. M. SOPER: I haven't figured out an efficient method of doing that. You see, with the eggs, my neighbours and I are organized, and so it's quite efficient for us to buy eggs. Now if you told me of someone who produces chickens in the neighbourhood and I can organize my neighbours to go with me, then perhaps we'll follow that route as well. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions by mem bers of the committee? Seeing none, Ms. Soper, thank you very much and your association for making a presentation.

The next name on our list, returning to the list, as we had it, is Mr. Dave Fulton, Manitoba Cattle Producers Association. Mr . Fulton.

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 MS. C. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I'm Charlene Graham, general manager of the association. Mr. Fulton had previous commitments and had to return home. He asked that I read his brief on his behalf. The Cattle Produc ers Association Act which came into existence five shor t years ago provided the opportunity for Manitoba cattle producers to form an organization to look after their own affairs regarding promotion of their product, market information and improving the general well-being of their industry.

The MCPA was subsequently formed, established by­ laws and regulations consistent with the act and is believed has been an effective organization representing and dealing with cattlemen and cattlemen's concerns. What does the MCPA mean to the average producer? lt is a forum to deal with the day-to-day concerns, such as land lease problems, wildlife and hunting rights, PFRA pasture problems and ROP problems. lt is the mechanism to initiate and to operate worthwhile programs such as the Preconditioned Feeder Cattle Program, and the Market Information Program.

MCPA is also the voice to represent the average producer in dealing with governments and government programs, such as stabilization, the Crow rate issue, land use policy, and a whole host more. Producers need to have the present legislation, The Cattle Produc ers Act, to have confidence and the security that their check off monies are used in a proper democratic manner to meet the stated objectives of the association. Bill 90, I submit, will destroy that confidence which producers have in the MCPA, because it effectively removes the ob jectives by repeal ing Sections 6 to 10 of the act.

Without Sections 6 to 10, I, as a producer, cannot have confidence that the money I want to put forward for cattle programs would be properly used and safeguarded. There is no provision for even an administration by-law under Bill 90. I ask you, is that the intent of Bill 90, to destroy the producers' confidence in MPCA? lt appears Bill 90 was hastily and badly written. Should Bill 90 be proclaimed, the status of the present by­ laws and regulations is left up in the air. There is nothing in the act that says the present by-laws and regulations are repealed.

No provision has been made for even the transition of the administration by-law from its present structure to something more consistent with the amended version of the act. The pr esent adminis tration by-law req uir es a series of district meetings in the fall; a mail-in ballot election to elect directors at an annual meeting in December. The association has no funds to follow these procedures. The association seems to have a choice of breaching its by-laws and not holding elections and meetings, or using refundable checkoffs to hold them, and not having the funds to ref und.

I submit that repealing the entire Cattle Producers Act would provide producers with a better opportunity to set up an association, which would not be hamstrung by Bill 90, and could have more freedom to operate in Manitoba, as we don't need a Bill 90 to form a cattle producers organization similar to the old beef growers and stock growers association. If the Minister is intent on doing away with MCPA, then do away with it by repealing the entire act. MCPA has very significant commitments entered into for the next year based on

Section 6( 1) which states the objectives of the organization as follows: advertise and promote the cattle and beef industry; initiate, sponsor and encourage research into production and marketing of cattle; enc ourage by education, information, advertising and promotion the marketing of a uni form product; and co-operate with any organization having a similar purpose. 432 No board would continue to operate MCPA without the ability to meet these financial obligations, and no power to make regulations regarding fee collection.

Under Bi1190, MCPA with the status of a natural person, would consider requesting the government to supply monies to meet the obligations already in effect, or would consider suing the Provincial Government for removal of the mechanism to meet those financial obligations. lt is irresponsible for the government to repeal powers to collect monies by regulation, without giving adequate time for the MCPA to reduce its financial obligations; obligations which were entered into to carry out the objectives, as stated in The Cattle Producers Act, and establish an alternate democr atic control structure.

The MCPA can be compared to other organizations such as the Manitoba Institute of Agrologists or the Law Society. lt can be viewed as the professional association for cattle producers. Would this government entertain the thoughts of changing the fee collection aspects of the MIA, if it found it disagreed with a viewpoint of the MIA? Why is the MCPA any different? Is this government establishing a precedent to amend any legislation of a self-govern ing organization, without the sanction of those involved? The MCPA has been self-gove rning, has abided by its by-laws and regulations.

Resolutions have come to the annual meeting of MCPA to adjust by-laws and regulations. These have been duly attended to and properly recorded. Producers have the opportunity to change the organization as they see fit. They don't need a repeal of some sections to do this and destroy the organization in the process. Bill 90 will serve to emasculate the MCPA. If a producer has a cow and a bull and emasculated the bull, his future is pretty limited. The same holds true with the MCPA with the advent of Bill 90.

I urge the government to think about what they are doing to avoid the dr astic measures of legal proceedings, which the association may be forced to take with the loss of funding. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Graham, are you prepared to answer questions on behalf of Mr . Fulton? MS. C. GRAHAM: I will not answer questions on the wording of Mr. Fulton's brief, but if they are technical questions about the association itself, I could attempt to answer those, yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions? Mr. Downey. MR. J. DOWNEY: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.

The Cattle Producers Organization has, in the last few years, provided market information which has been I believe paid for with the producer funds and with the government funds. Has there been a change recently in the operation or the providing of funds for that information services?

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 MS. C. GRAHAM: With the Marketing Information Service we were receiving a government grant to help operate the service, but that was discontinued and this service is now run on producer funds completely. We have cut out part of the service by taking away one of the tol l-free lines. MR. J. DOWNEY: How widely used is that information service? Is there a broad range of use of it - numbers of people particularly that would use it, on say a weekly or a monthly basis? MS. C. GRAHAM: We receive about 30 calls a day on the tol l-free slaughter line.

Many of those calls come from media people, who then broadcast it on their radio station, so it gets out in that form. MR. J. DOWNEY: So in other words, you're saying that there's approximately 30 calls a day coming to the Information Services to find out precisely what the beef is selling for on any given day in the marketplace, is that correct? MS. C. GRAHAM: Correct. MR. J. DOWNEY: And you said that this current government has removed the government funding and support, and now is carried by the cattle producers.

As proposed, if Bill 90 is passed and the organization loses its ability to function, who will or where would you expect the producers to get that information, and who will pay the cost of that? MS. C. GRAHAM: I'm not sure. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, a fair question would be: that information then would not actually be provided for the producers of Manitoba? MS. C. GRAHAM: Correct MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Mr . Uruski. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, could you give us the process that a producer goes to apply for refund under the association levy , since you are the administrative officer? MS. C.

GRAHAM: A producer wishing to obtain a refund must send in a letter signed by him indicating that he wishes a refu nd. This must be done each year, and once we have received the letter, we send him the appropriate form, which he fills out and sends back to us with his statements, indicating the fee deductions made on behalf of the association. That's processed and we mail them as refund cheque. HON. B. URUSKI: Is there any time limit or is there any time frame, or how is it handled specifically? MS. C.

GRAHAM: For the 50 cents a head for the association, his letter of request must be in by June 30th, and his statements with his forms must be in by July 15th. For the beef promotion checkoff, his letter 433 of requests must be in by December 30th and his statements with his forms must be in by January 15th. HON. B. URUSKI: So there are actually two letters that are required by a producer is that correct; or one letter? MS. C. GRAHAM: Well he could write one letter indicating both things, if it comes in at the right time. HON. B. URUSKI: I don't un derstand that. Could you clarify that? MS. C. GRAHAM: Okay.

If if he wrote his letter, let's take 1983, for example, before June 30, 1983, indicating that he wished a refund on MCPA and beef promotion, that letter would apply to both because he had it in before the June 30th deadline and before the December 30th deadline of the beef promotion checkoff. HON. B. URUSKI: So when would he receive the forms? One is at the end of the year, would he receive the forms - let's say I wrote him in the middle of June and you receive it by the end of June, I .then would have 15 days from the end of June to file my receipts, is that correct? MS. C. GRAHAM: For the MCPA. HON. B.

URUSKI: Yes. And the same for the end of the year for the promotion levy, at the end of December or the middle of January? MS. C. GRAHAM: Right HON. B. URUSKI: If I delayed, what is the process? MS. C. GRAHAM: If you wrote after June 30th? HON. B. URUSKI: Yes. MS. C. GRAHAM: If your letter was written after June 30th it would apply to beef promotion deductions still made in 1983 and it would apply to MCPA deductions made from July 1, 1983, to June 30, 1984. HON. B. URUSKI: Could you tell me, if more than one producer wrote in at the same time, has that been accepted?

Let's say two or thr ee of us in a family farm together, would we be eligible to write one letter to get the forms? MS. C. GRAHAM: No, they usually require that each individual writes a letter. HON. B. URUSKI: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Mr. Driedger. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Ms. Gr aham, as, I bel ieve, Executive Director, am I correct? Could you indicate how many people paid into the MCPA fund through deductions? Do you have a list of all the people that have had money deducted from them?

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 MS. C. GRAHAM: We have a registered list of voting producers and then we have our list of people who have requested refu nds that are no longer considered voting memb ers. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Could you give us the amount of people that are registered voters or eligible, and the ones that have requested the rebate? MS. C. GRAHAM: On our voters' list there's approximately 14 ,600 names and this year we had 185 individuals request a re fund. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Okay, I can do the calculation myself.

But what percentage, I'm sure you must have the percentage, of people that have requested the rebate - out of 14 ,600 that contributed to the fund and 185 that ... MS. C. GRAHAM: Less than 2 percent. MR. A. DRIEDGER: One more question. What was the amount of money out of those 185 that was requested back, roughly? MS. C. GRAHAM: We're still in the process of calculating the refunds as this is the refund period, but between the MCPA checkoff and the beef promotion checkoff refunds, it'll amount to about $40,000.00. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Out of a total of how much? MS. C.

GRAHAM: I don't have the complete total of our income yet, but approximately that represents 8.6 percent of our income. MR. A. DRIEDGER: That's fine, thank you. HON. B. URUSKI: Could you tell me how many producers contributed to the MCPA in whatever time frame you've got that has been complete? MS. C. GRAHAM: We don't have the numb er of producers; our records are kept as the numb er of head marketed. HON. B. URUSKI: Would you know how many produ cers are members of the MCPA? MS. C.

GRAHAM: On our voting list there's appr oximately 14,6 00 name s; but that includes corporations who are allowed three voting members. HON. B. URUSKI: How current is that list? MS. C. GRAHAM: The list is revised every September, but we do not take a name off the list unle ss they ask for a refu nd, or unless we get notification that they are no longer a producer, or if we get a mailing card back saying that they have changed their address and are no longer in the cattle business. So if a producer does not notify us that he is out of the business, his name stays on. HON. B.

URUSKI: So you wouldn't know if a producer is, in fact, producing, because you won' t know whether 434 a particular levy came from producer John Doe. You knew you had received money, but you wouldn't know who it was from? MS. C. GRAHAM: Correct. HON. S. USKIW: How long have you been with the association as manager? MS. C. GRAHAM: Two-and-a-half years. HON. S. USKIW: Are you fully conversant with the provisions in the act, the powers within it? MS. C. GRAHAM: I think I am, yes. HON. S.

USKIW: Are you aware of the provisions in the Electoral Divisions Commission that decides on how constituencies are to be formed for the election of the Legislature. I notice in the administration by-laws of this act, under which you function, that this particular body sets those rules for itself and can determine who is eligible to vote and who is not eligible to vote. Do you think that makes for good legislation in the public interest? MS. C.

GRAHAM: Before the organization can amend those by-laws, or change them, it has to go in front of a vote of producers at the annual meeting, and they must have 30 days notice of any changes. HON. S. USKIW: That is the point I'm making. The people that are allowed to vote at the annual meeting are predetermined by the people who are going to be questioned by those people who are going to be at the annual meeting. In other words, I can select my own audience. If I am on the board, if I am the board, I can select my own delegate body; that's what this says.

I don't know of any other democratic institution that functions that way. MS. C. GRAHAM: All the directors are elected by the mem bers in their district. HON. S. USKIW: That's right; and who decides on who is eligible to elect them? MS. C. GRAHAM: Anybody who is a cattle producer that has had the fee deducted and has not had his money refu nded. MS. C. GRAHAM: All right, how then do you rationalize 11 .1 (

h) in your by-laws that says "that the powers of this agency is to establish rules to determine those producers who are eligible to vote for the purpose of electing the members of the association and at meetings of registered producers, and such other matters related to the conduct of the meetings of the association and registered producers, and for the purpose of discharge of the dut ies of the assoc iation and pr oper administration of the act." They have a conflict of interest built right into this act. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 MR. J. DOWNEY: Point of ord er, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Mr. Downey on a point of order . MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, this person has read a brief and we're asking questions on Bill 90, not Bill 25, Mr . Chairman, which the Member for Lac du Bonnet had all the opportunity when this was before committee when it was passed. HON. S. USKIW: Oh, we dealt with that. We called it fascist legislation at that time. Mr . Chairman, do I have the floor? MR. CHAIRMAN: To the same point of order? HON. S. USKIW: No, I want the flo or. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Well, I would like to rule on the point of order. If ther e's any further discussion of the point of order? Mr. Adam. HON. A. ADAM: Yes, I want to speak on it. On the point of order raised by Mr. Downey, I think that the witness, Miss Graham, indicated that she did noUeel that she wanted to reply to the brief that she was reading on behalf of Mr. Fulton, but she would respond to qu estions, techni cal qu estions, dealing with the association, and I think that is what the member is doing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further discussion? Gentlemen, I do have a bit of a problem.

As you know the precedence for debate on second reading require that debate be restricted to the subject matter of the amending bill, unless the amending bill introduces what is, for all intents and purposes, a completely new act. In committee we are somewhat looser , in terms of allowing movement into other areas of the bill, but that does not allow the kind of discussion which Mr. Uskiw is now engaging in, which goes beyond the complete areas that are touched upon by Bill 90. So unless Mr. Uskiw can tie his questions more directly to Bill 90, I have to sustain Mr. Downey's objection to the line of questioning.

Mr . Uskiw. HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr . Chairman, Bill 90 simply repeals the powers of this association and therefore anyone making a presentation in support of retention of those powers, I believe is in ord er. I believe the whole matter has to be dealt with in the context of the law that we are amending. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Uskiw, the questions you are asking, do they relate to sections, I believe it's 6 through 10? HON. S. USKIW: Yes, yes, very much because Bill 90 has them. MR. CHAIRMAN: May I have a copy of the bill, please? Mr. Uskiw, do all your questions flow from

section 7 of the current statute? Is that what you're suggesting? 435 HON. S. USKIW: it's all part of it. lt permeates the whole legislation, Mr . Chairman. Regulations of the Association is under

section 7, and this body has the power to make regulations the same as the Government of Manitoba has the power to make regulations. You don' t give anybody that kind of power, Jim. That's a no-no. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Mr. Uskiw, please try to keep your questions to the subject matter of Bill 90. Insofar as the regulation authority, which is contained in

Section 7, relates to the Regulations for the Administration of the Association, your questions are in order; but if we wander beyond that, I have to remind you of Mr . Downey's objection. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I think the witness before us was prepared to give an answer to the questions that were already put before the interjection. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you rephrase your question so that it flows from the proposed amendments in Bill 90 then, please? HON. S. USKIW: All right. Would you consider the powers within the legislation as being powers that should be enjoyed by a private organization? MS. C.

GRAHAM: That's a personal opinion, and that's not a technical question relating to . . . HON. S. USKIW: No, I am asking you your opinion. MS. C. GRAHAM: I said I would answer technical questions about the association. HON. S. USKIW: You don' t want to give an opinion on that. Would you believe that it's logical and makes sense to require any person to belong to an association, not of their choice, by law? MS. C. GRAHAM: I am only an employee of the association and again I feel that's a personal opinion. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I don' t believe there is any point in pursuing matters of that kind with an employee of the association. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions from members of the committee? Seeing none, Ms. Graham, thank you very much for representing Mr . Fulton, and for your additional answers to questions. Mr . Doug Mcla ren, Manitoba Cattle Producers Association. Mr . Mclaren. MR. D. McLAREN: Mr. Chairman, committee members, ladies and gentlemen, I am here basically as a farmer­ fee der to exp ress my strong opposition to the amendments contained in Bill 90.

This legislation will reduce Manitoba Cattle Producers Association to a mere skeleton. I think we all know what function skeletons perform. You stand them in the closet, you open the door, and they crumble at your feet. -

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 This will also effectively elimi nate Manitoba's contribution to the Beef Information Centre and to their National Advertising Campaign. I would touch on this issue. An independent research study has concluded that this national ad campaign is working and working well. After five months of "Beef Sounds Good," there have been shifts large enough to be of statistical significance. Perceptions of beef as "economical," as "v alue for money," in "cost per servi ng," in "taste appeal" have all shown substantial gains.

These results indicate beef producers investment has begun to pay off with remarkable cost effectiveness. The total cost of the campaign works out to less than one-tenth of a cent per pound of live animal. This means if live cattle prices were to increase just one cent per pound, the producers investment in advertising would be returned 10 times over. Manitoba producers have contributed thousands of dollars to this campaign.

The proposed amendments to Bill 25 will elimi nate Ma nitoba pr oduc ers' contributions and benefits from this national advertising and promotion campaign, which has already proven its effectiveness. Again, I reiterate my strong opposition to Bill 90 and would like to see it withdrawn, to maintain the benefits that accrue to all Manitoba beef producers. An additional comment I might make, from the board's point of view, is that we have requested that a plebiscite of producers be held on this issue and we would certainly be prepared to abide with the wishes of the majority.

There has been mention in this comm ittee that this plebiscite was not held when this legislation was first introduced, and my suggestion - and the way that I was brought up I was always led to believe that two wrongs did not make a right - I see no reason for not holding a plebiscite on this issue. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr . Mclaren. Questions from members of the committee? Mr. Orchard. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr . Mclaren, the results you indicate of the "Beef Sounds Good" ads, you say that the shifts have been large enough to be of statistical significance.

Is that in per capita consumption that you are referring to there? MR. D. McLAREN: it's basically a shif t in the perception, and again as I mentioned in the economy; the perception of the consumers' attitude towards beef. MR. D. ORCHARD: Has that been reflected yet in any way that you can tabulate an increase of consumption by ihe consumer? MR. D. McLAREN: I think, as was mentioned this morning by the chairman of our organization, if you eliminate the degree of unemplo yment in this country, that you would see a fairly significant increase in per capita consumption. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Orchard. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions from mem bers of the committee? Seeing none, Mr. Mclaren, thank you very much for appearing. Next on our list is Mr. Bob Mu nroe, Manitoba Cattle Producers Association. 436 Mr. Uruski. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, could we put Mr. Mun roe's and Mr. Chambers' name to the end? They advised me that they were at a function this evening and they may be able to make it back later this evening, so we should move their names to the bottom of the list. MR. CHAIRMAN: I take it then Mr . Chambers has not returned yet, either? HON. B. URUSKI: No. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr . Terry Eyjolfson. One moment please, sir. Mr . Driedger. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Maybe Mr. Chairman, to clarify Mr . Munroe and Mr. Chambers, could the Minister indicate where they are at? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Uruski. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr . Chairman, they told me they were attending another function and I believe it's in Gunton. I'm not sure of all the details but they said they would try to be back here later this evening. MR. A. DRI EDGER: Mr .

Chairman, it is my understanding that both these mem bers are involved, together with the Department of Agriculture, in terms of a Peter Program that they're promoting and they had some concern that they wanted to make their presentation, that they didn't anticipate maybe that it would be finishing tonight. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, just to make it perfectly clear, I indicated to the gentlemen that likely we would be finishing this evening and they said, yes, they und erstood that and they would try and make it back later this even ing. I did speak to both gentlemen personally . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Eyjolfson, please proceed. MR. T. EYJOLFSON: Mr . Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I am appearing before this committee to voice my opposition to Bill 90, to amend The Cattle Produc ers Act. If passed, this bill will surely restrict the activity of the MCPA, as it is more commonly known, not just locally but nationally. The most recent, the preconditioning program and the national advertising program - I might add here that the preconditioning program is what Munroe and Chambers are on tonight, they are at a meeting in Gunton.

They are explaining the preconditioning program to some producers at Gunton and they are doing a demonstration of how preconditioning can be

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 done and how it can accomplish and realize an extra bit of profit for producers in selling calves, whether they market them themselves, or feed them themselves, or whether they sell them to a feedlot in Manitoba. The national adv er tising campaign. You can un derstand possibly the amount of funding needed to support an advertising campaign has to rely on the continuity of money and has to be committed long range in advance. This organization, up to this point, has not committed money that we don't have.

We've always committed whatever we've been able to pay and we've never committed money that we hadn't collected before we knew what our refund would be. This disappoints me greatly. From 1974, I have been working towards an organization that will benefit all producers that wish to produce beef in Manitoba. In 1974, a few fellows and myself started a voluntary producer organization, namely, the Manitoba Cow-Calf Association, and I was president of this group for two years. We had a difficult time in getting producer participation.

Unless there was a local problem, or a provincial problem, they weren't very much interested. From a membership of several thousand in 19 74 it soon dwindled down due to the lack of direct personal problems to the beef industry, or personal problems of an individual produc er. Producers would come to us and say, can you do something for me individually? I can remember being at a meeting with a group of dele gates from the Cow-Calf Association meeting with Mr .

Uskiw, and one of the people that I brought to the meeting, he'd used our organization as a vehicle to try and get his cattle out of quarantine because he had bought a bunch of cows and he had 200 cows to feed and no hay, and they were quarantined because of brucellosis. He wanted the Minister of Agriculture to release the quarantine so that he could sell the cattle. That's the kind of people you draw up for a voluntary organization; it's for their own special interest that they fol low an organization such as that.

I was very disappointed in that sort of attitude and I didn't like being used under that system. lt became very evident that well-funded organization was needed. it was evisioned that such an organization be formed in Manitoba that could take action on local and national bases and have the ability to accept input from producers by motions passed at district meetings, and carried forth to an association meeting; to work with governments and have input into important programs affecting the beef indus try.

If Bill 90 passes the MCPA will be left with an organization that attracts mem bers with personal interests that can be handled by MLAs, such as, flood and things like that, most being flood, drought and fire problems. The beef industry in Manitoba is more than a local industry. We should have greater input into Manitoba and national issues - and it might be pointed out that our organization was successful in passing a motion at CCA Annual Meeting to strive for a national stabilization program.

I'll just add a little bit here, that for years, since 1974, we had been discussing with the possibility of a national program and we were trying to influence the national associations to strive for that sort of thing. lt was the Canadian Cattlemens Association that said that they don't want any part of stabilization. But last year, and the year before, it wasn't 437 until other provinces got into the practice of stabilization and money to produ cers that unequalized the whole system of beef in Canada, that left Manitoba out in the cold.

So we were saying to CCA, look, we've got to have something national, we can't have provincial treasuries competing against one another for the beef industry because, if it ever does come down to that, we know where the beef will be, it will be in Alberta. The Manitoba Minister of Agriculture is involved in setting up this. I've attended a meeting in Regina with him - not really with him - but from our association that he was at and I was very pleased with the presentation that our Minister made towards a national program.

I hope that he strives for such a program and adopts the policy of a price base national program, rather than a cost base because of the complexity of a cost base program nationally. The different regional advantages make it pretty near impossible to adopt such a program. Therefore, I request that the Minister withdraw Bill 90 and retain the MCPA intact, and allow Manitoba produ cers the same advantages that other provinces have. Thank you. I'll entertain and try to answer any questions you might have. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Eyjolfson. Any questions from members of the committee? Mr . Manness. MR. C.

MANNESS: Just one question, Mr. Chairman, and I could have asked it earlier on but I forgot. Specifically, and I don't know the number of animals that are marketed every year, but how much money does come forward by way of levy to the MCPA over the past couple of years. MR. T. EYJOLFSON: The last couple of years? it was stated this morning what possibly the total was of all the years that we've been in operation. I have our employee here to . . . MS. C. GRAHAM: Since the association was formed they've taken in approximately $886,000.00. MR. C. MANNESS: And ho w many people are employed by the organization today?

MR. T. EY JOLFSON: We have thr ee employees and one part-time employee, I guess, two regular employees and two part-time employees - we have a home economist and a manager and a typist or secretary. I might point out that that's very convenient when I'v e got home and got haying to do and I'v e got important things to do, I can always get on the phone to our manager and get her to write a letter that has to be done. At least she can get it spelled right - you'll notice by my brief, it maybe identifies the quality of my writing. Any word over four letters I have a hard time to spelL MR.

CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Mr . Manness. MR. C. MANNESS: Do you see the association then falling back to the pre- 1978 days when you said you had to go through all those problems as president, and I

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 that the real int erest jus t wasn 't th ere amo ngst producers? MR. T. EYJOLFSON: That's right. There isn't any way that I'm going to ask those same people to carry out and support an organization such as that. In those years, in '7 4 when gas was still less than 20 cents a litre, it was fine to volunteer and give up your time to support and campaign for a membership in an organization; now the costs are very high.

The beef industry in Manitoba is not local; it's a national commodity and it's one of the largest commodities we have in Manitoba, in Canada. lt deserves a lot more attention than a voluntary organization can provide. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Downey. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Eyjolfson. The cattle producers organization, as it is now enacted and carrying out business, has entered into agreements with the Canadian Cattle Produc ers Associat ion, the Canadian Cattlemens Associ ation .

You' ve made commitments to spend money, that now it would appear because of the funding mechanism being removed, that in fact will remove the funds which you've counted on to carry out some of these commitments. What do you foresee happening when Bill 90 passes; do you foresee the commitments that have been made, are you able to get out of those contracts, are the Board of Directors, as in the Co-operative movement having to now take on the liability that has been put in place?

What are the implications of the whole removal of this funding mechanism, as far as the contractual agreements and the personal liabilities that are involved? MR. T. EYJOLFSON: I think that anyone can realize the problems that you would have. In order to be able to commit certain funds to certain functions, advertising, whatever it is to other orga nizations, has to be committed on a long-range basis. lt will be no longer possible to predict or be able to indicate to any producer organization the ability to fund the required money to support it.

We would have to say, at that time, then that we would have to cut back on all th ese commitments and not commit any money that we don't have, because once you've committed the money you're liable to a certain extent, the association is. MR. J. DOWNEV: Wel l, I'm not qu ite clear, Mr . Chairman, I know there's an agreement signed between the Cattle Produc ers Association and the Canadian Cattlemens Association in which you've committed money to carry out a Beef Promotion Program. Are you going to be let out of that committment if the funds aren't there to pay it? MR. T.

EVJOLFSON: Well, we'd have to try to negotiate out of that one. I think at the time we are being able to make the commitment now, but we've been on a basis of we're not committing money until after we're exactly sure on how much money is left after the refunds have been made; so we haven't made the commitment for the next term yet. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, do all other provinces in Canada participate in the promotion of beef through the Canadian Cattlemens Association? 438 MR. T. EVJOLFSON: Well, it's a branch of the Canadian Cattlemens Association, Beef Information Service, yes, and all provinces do. MR. J.

DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, with this proposed change and the loss of funding and the possible removal of Manitoba's support, that will leave Manitoba Cattle Prod ucers as the only pr ovince that will not be participating in the promotion of beef in Canda? MR. T. EYJOLFSON: That's right and we will have to withdraw the advertising that is now taking place in Manitoba. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions from members of the commi ttee? Seeing none, Mr . Eyjolfson, thank you for appearing tonight. Next on our list is Mr. Thad Snow; Mr. Snow. MR. T.

SNOW: First of all, gentlemen, loosen your ties, take off your jackets and put the darn magazines away. We came here at our own expense, I left $1 million enterprise at home to come and talk to you, at least, show us the courtesy of listening. Mr . Chairman, I'd like to make something clear. Mr. Uskiw is always harping about our laws. Anybody can go to our annual meeting, whether he's a paid-up member or not; every producer can go to our annual meeting. The only stipulation is a producer that has withdr awn his money from our organization is not allowed to vote, but everybody can go to our annual meeting.

Get that straight, don't start putting in all kinds of things into our laws. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, on a point of ord er. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw, on a point of order. HON. S. USKIW: I'd like the member that wants to present a brief to read into the record, if he wishes, the legislation about which we are discussing this bill, the bill that relates to the powers in the act, and that is dictatorial legislation. MR. T. SNOW: lt is not dictatorial, anybody can go to our meetings that's a prod ucer and they're allowed to vote if they haven't withdr awn their money. HON. S. USKIW: They shouldn't have that power.

MR. T. SNOW: Honourable Bill Uruski, Members of the Standing Comm ittee, it seems that for the first time in decades cattle producers have had an organization with funding abilities to carry out programs wanted by the produ cers for the benefit of producers. We pay our own way in the free and democratic system. The few non-suppor ters, and you will always get them no matter how good an organization you're running, have the privilege of withdrawing their contribution each year. All they have to do is write in a letter, they're sent a form and they send us their deductions and we send them out to them.

In 1982, the withdrawals were 1. 4 percent of the prod ucers, and in 1983 it is just a little under 2 percent,

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 which would indicate that dissenting members are few and far between. In my predominantly NDP district every producer I approached was anxious to sign the form against Bill 90 - now note that, my dis trict is predomi nantly NDP . They all felt we had done a commendable job in the short years of our existence. Most were critical of the "appointed Beef Commission" which they joined mainly for the incentive grant. If there hadn't been that incentive grant your people joining that would have been a very very small percentage.

They felt it had done nothing to raise cattle prices, the Beef Commission has done nothing to raise cattle prices, in fact, they have caused a discrepancy between the Brandon prices and the Winnipeg prices. For myself, I was born in Poland and immigrated to Canada with my parents in 1929. My father had heard much about the freedom in Canada where a person could produce and work with no restrictions. Bill 90 reminds me of the Solidarity movement in the land of my birth.

There, also, the people had organized and tried to work for the betterment of producers and workers only to be harassed and disbanded by government intervention regardle ss of the fact that soli darity had the supp ort of the majority of the producers. What's the difference whether you do it by majority vote, or whether you do it by guns. If you have a majority vote and you want to pass something you go ahead and pass it it's the same thing as you've taken guns and said, okay, you guys get out of there, it amounts to the same old thing.

What has this government got against producers electing their own members and running their own affairs? We all know that all other provinces have very similar organizations. We can also remember that the former NDP Government in Saskatchewan nearly killed its organization with the same tactics that your Bill 90 is planning to use; very same thing. Has the Minister checked the operations of some of those produ cers that are complaining about MCPA; are they truly cattle producers? The fellow that's the leader of that very very vocal group has 17 cows.

Now, surely to God, you can't call a man like that a leader in the cattle business that depend mainly for their livelihood on cattle. The cattle are the main source of income for the support of my family.

The directors of MCPA are in the organization for the same reason as myself - to try and better the lot of cattle producers in Manitoba and Canada, as a whole - by supporting national advertising to promote beef, arranging range patrols, advertising to promote beef, and contributing to Vido by supporting other farm organizations like the Farm Bureau, the CCA and others who are concerned about the well-being of all produ cers in agriculture. Also, it hasn't been mentioned, our economic person will visit schools and encourages good diets to the younger people going to school,. instead of the junk food.

We are told that cattle numbers are down in Manitoba, and why shouldn't they be, they are down the world over. The cattle num bers are down 3 percent the world over, the percentage is larger in Manitoba. Well, why shouldn't the numb ers be down here, we haven't got the top loading that they've had in B.C. and Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. Those people have an advantage over us. This isn't taking into account the generous offers in Quebec.

At one time I had an offer 439 to go to Quebec and start up a feedlot with $18 0,000 grant non-refundable because La Belle province is trying to become self-sufficient in meat products. Sam, you're not interested in what I'm saying? Please, I may as well go home, Mr. Chairman, if this is going to go on. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam, on a point of order . HON. A. ADAM: Yes, on a point of order . Honest, the Mem bers of the Legislative Assembly have, over the years, because of the work that they have to do are able to read and listen at the same time. MR. T. SNOW: I'm glad you people are.

Our organization is not trying to destroy the Crow. We've been accused of trying to destroy the Crow or eat it However, it is a fact of life, the Crow is being changed. There's nothing you or I are going to do abou t it. The Federal Government has made up its mind to change the Crow. All we're trying to do is get as much benefit for the Manitoba producers, be it the grain prod ucers or cattle producers, to keep as much money in the farmers' pockets instead of giving every thing to the railroad.

If you'd fol low the Sheldon Fult on/Ma zan kowski approach, where the bulk of the federal money still goes to the railroad, but the balance to the farmers, depending on the acreage, then the producer has a chance of doing what he likes with his grain. He can feed it; he can make a choice of the crops he wants to grow and every thing else, because that money is allocated to each producer. Passing Bill 90 would be a serious step backwards, at least five years and hundr eds of thousands of dollars of producers' hard earned bucks, spent on promoting beef.

Surely you don't want this on your conscience because of a very small, but vocal group, who only seem to have a negative attitude toward any progress. There are some people in this party here that have been fighting an ongoing battle. They got their danders up; they were rubbed the wrong way about seven years ago and they can't let a dying dog die. They just want to keep carrying on this end less war with the cattle producers. I wish it would go over. We don't have to think of the past; let's think of today and the time to come. Why keep harping on about something that happened six, seven, eight years ago?

That's a thing of the past. Some of the advisors that are maybe giving this advice caused the downfall of the previous NDP Go vernment here in Manitoba. They went to Saskatchewan and caused the downfall of the NDP Government in Saskatchewan; they've come back here again. What do we want? The downfall of this government again? Come on, fellas. lt seems a government is elected by a majority vote and when a government is elected, regardless of how I feel about certain people, they are the party in power because the majority of the people voted for them.

But it seems when some of the governments get into power, they forget that they were elected by the majority, but they listen to a few very very local minority groups, try and put some legislation through, because they've been so vocal. Bill 90, as far as I'm concerned, runs against the best wishes of the majority of the Manitoba citizens

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 and I'l l not go into details, but leave it for you to think about, some other things that this government has been passing that have really gone against the grain of the average producer that have not been voted for and yet it's being legislated into Manitoba things. I'll leave it up to you fellas to think about. Things are enough, in farming, without our local government throwing in a few bomb shells. I sincerely hope that the Min ister and this committee reconsider Bill 90 and join the ranks cf myself and the majority of the cattle producers from District 14 and leave well enough alone.

Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr . Snow. Are there any questions from mem bers of the committee? Mr . Adam. HON. A. ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Snow. One of the complaints that I have received from producers is that there is some discrimination in the per-head levy or tax on a per-head basis, and I refer specifically to - I think it's a doll ar, eh? MR. T. SNOW: Yes, a dollar a head. HON. A.

ADAM: The complaints that I'm receiving is that it's a dollar for a calf; it's a dollar for a 500-pound calf; it's a dollar for a calf just born, 50, 60 or 80, 100 pounds, whatever, that sold on the market, regardle ss if the animal is worth $1 00, $75 or $1 ,000, it's still a dollar a head. I received that complaint from a number of people. I want to ask you if there's any other way that you could address that, but how do you police the farm­ to-farm sales? MR. T. SNOW: Farm-to-farm sales are non-deductible. There are no deductions made on farm-to-farm sales.

As far as your first question, yes, it was brought up at our last annual meeting to try and do away with that $1 deduction. However, the producers voted it down unanimously. We have to follow what's passed at our annual meetings. lt was voted down unanimously. I'm sorry, but regardless of what I may feel, I felt that it was awful too, some of these, what they call the day­ old calves, the $1 deduction, but it was voted down by the producers and we have to abide by their wishes. HON. A. ADAM: In my opinion, the most profitable sector of the beef industry would be the purebred breeders.

In other words, if I was to go and buy a purebred animal, a bull or a cow, say, a bull for $2,000 or $3,000, that would be a farm-to-farm sale and there would be no contributions there. MR. T. SNOW: That's right. HON. A. ADAM: Is that, in your opinion, some dis cri mination on the mo st profitable end of the industry? MR. T. SNOW: That was also voted down but, mind you, a lot of the purebred organizations, they make these deductions at their sales, all the purebred sales, they make deductions. 440 HON. A. ADAM: Maybe the purebred sales do, but I'm not sure if you're a commercial or purebred. MR. T.

SNOW: I'm both. HON. A. ADAM: You're both, but if I went to your place and bought a $3,000 bull, the contribution would be very voluntary on your part. MR. T. SNOW: That's right; I could send in $1 for that bull. HON. A. ADAM: But most probably wouldn't do that. MR. T. SNOW: We have quite a few; Peter Friesen, for one thing. He goes and sells it to people and he sends in his contribution every time he makes a sale and we have many producers that do that. HON. A. ADAM: My last question is that there is some leakage in that respect, is there not? MR. T. SNOW: it's leakages caused by the votes of producers.

They wanted it that way and we leave it that way. There's nothing we change on our own without a producer vote. I don't think anything could be fairer than that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Gourla y. MR. D. GOU RLAY: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. Thad, I'd like to congratulate you and the MCPA. I know that as a former ag rep for the area, you have organized extension meetings in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture, I believe, in certain locations with respect to different phases of livestock production, warble treatment and one thing and another like that.

I was just wondering, how did you find those meetings were received by the producers in the area. MR. T. SNOW: I'll tell you, I was the first producer in our area that started Ruline (phonetic) this treatment for cattle and the ag reps used my facilities as . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Mr. Uskiw on a point of ord er. HON. S. USKIW: I believe the questions ought to be related to the bill before us. The Member for Swan River is pursuing a line of questioning that has nothing to do with the legislation before us. MR. T. SNOW: For the interest of the fellas here . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. T.

SNOW: I'm sorry; I'd like to say something. lt goes on to with Bill 90. MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point, you're only eligible to speak in answer to questions. Mr . Gourla y, do you have further questions? MR. D. GOURLAY: I would like to ask Mr. Snow what further information he'd like to present to the committee on Bill 90?

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 MR. T. SNOW: I would like to say this, the minute Bill 90 - if and when it's passed - we immediately are putting our organization into receivership. We're all resigning and we're putting our organization into receivership, so be prepared for that. it's not a thr eat; it's a promise. That's exactly what we intend to do. None of us are prepared to work as a skeleton organization where we can't do things that the producers want done, because we have no definite means of funding and I haven't got the time to run around the country trying to collect a few dollars here and there.

I have my own business to run. it's fine for the members here; they're all paid by the taxpayers of Manitoba. I am not. All of here are on our own time, for our own money. We came to this meeting and I'm just not prepared to take more time off to run around the country because that takes a lot of time. Mr . Go urla y kn ows how vast and scattered my territory is, it runs from Pine River to The Pas and North. I just can't afford the time to run around and try and do some collecting. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, a question to Mr. Snow.

Dealing with Bill 90, there appears to have been today the majority of people who have spoken, have spoken in favour of main taining the Cattle Prod ucers Organization as it is. Are you aware of any major opposition throughout the cattle industry or organized group of people who are adamantly opposed to the carrying on of this organization? Or where do you think the oppo sition to the current Cattle Prod ucers Association is coming from? What group? MR. T. SNOW: Mr.

Chairman, there is a very very strong vocal group, but as has been mentioned before, I think you can put them all in a Volkswagen, but they are very vocal, they've even been on T.V. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr . Chairman, Mr. Snow you've ind icated that if this bill were to pass that your organization would go into receiveship. Is that an opinion that you have received from your legal counsel that that is the way that you'll be forced to go? MR. T. SNOW: That's right. Not from the legal counsel, from our ownmembers.

We are not prepared to carry on after, if and when Bill 90 is passed, so that our producers know why we are not in operation any more. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr . Chairman, this is a fairly serious decision to make after all of the representation we've had made here today about the information that has been provided and all the positive things that have taken place throughout the last few years. Would that decision be reconsidered if this government were to withdraw Bill 90 and continue on with the organization as it is with that decision change, and you'd carry on with your organization? MR. T. SNOW: Mr .

Chairman, I have been with this organization since its first inception. I was on the organizing where we dr ew up the by-laws and everything else and it would really break my heart to see it go down because I like the way that our economists go 441 to school; we have booths at fairs with all our different displays; we fund BIC; and definite ly, I'm sure every member of this organization would like to carry on the way things are. But like I said, we are no going to work as a skeleton or a bunch of mummies where we will not be able to do the job our producers expect of us.

So rather than that we just throw it into receivership and just leave it at that because all the fellows have spoken to me and they're all of the same opinion, they're not willing to work as dum mies. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Seeing none, Mr. Snow, thank you for appearing tonight. MR. T. SNOW: Thank you, Sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ne xt on our list is Mr . Go ody Sigurdson, Manitoba Cattle Producers Association. Mr. Sigurdson. MR. G. SIGURDSON: Mr. Chairman, I think pretty well all the members here have said what I was going to say so I'd only be duplicating what they have already said.

But I was asked by some organizations in my area to present a small brief here by the Westlake Grasslands Association, the Reykjavik Range Patrol, the Reykjavik Pasture Association, Ste. Rose and District Cattlemens Association and the Westlake Range Patrol. They all expressed the same feelings that they don't see how the government can justify getting rid of an organization that represents cattle producers like we do. I think that's about all I've got to say. MR. CH AIRMAN: Thank you, Mr . Sigurdson. Questions? Mr . Downey. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, to Mr.

Sigurdson, do you have a copy of those lists of organizations that are opposed to the change of Bill 90? Mr. Chairman, would he provide a copy directly for us to have tonight of those organizations? MR. G. SIGURDSON: Yes, I forgot them in my hotel room but I have a copy here and I gave the Clerk a copy, so you can probably get copies. MR. J. DOWNEY: We can get it out of Hansard but it would have made it helpful to have it this evening. How many organizations? Would you repeat those please? MR. G. SIGURDSON: The West lake Gr asslands Association, Reykjavik Range Patrol, the Reykjavik Pasture Association, Ste.

Rose and District Cattlemens Association and the Westlake Range Patrol. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, how many cattle producers would they represent, approximately? MR. G. SIGURDSON: 500 probabl y. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Mr. Downey?

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 MR. J. DOWNEY: No, thank you, Mr . Chairman, that's all. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Uruski. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr . Chairman, to Mr. Sigurdson, would the membership of those groups have been consulted on the question of Bill 90? MR. G. SIGURDSON: Well, I'm President of the Reykjavik Range Patrol and I'm Presi dent of the Reykjavik Pasture Association. I'm also Director on the Grasslands Association and I was at those meetings and we discussed it at those meetings before the meeting and awhile after. I think they're all well aware of it. HON. B. URUSKI: At the executive level? MR. G.

SIGURDSON: Well, the directors and the president, yes. HON. B. URUSKI: Would those mem bers, those 500 mem bers, have signed the forms that were put out by the MCPA? MR. G. SIGURDSON: Well some of them did but I didn't get to all of them. The members of the Ste. Rose and District Cattlemens Association, well they scatter right from Rorketon to Winni pegosis right back up to McCreary and Neepawa, probably. Some people even from Ashern bring their cattle there. HON. B. URUSKI: So you have some of those letter s signed? MR. G.

SIGURDSON: I have some of them here from the president and the directors, they were more or less speaking for the group. HON. B. URUSKI: Would you be prepared to provide them for this committee? MR. G. SIGURDSON: I haven't got them right with me now but the president and those people were speaking for their people that they had talked to. Actual signed forms, no I haven't got them. HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parasiuk. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Sigurdson, are you a director of the Manitoba Cattle Produc ers Associaton? MR. G. SIGURDSON: Yes, I represent District 12. HON. W.

PARASIUK: I just picked up on the comment made earlier by Mr. Downey wherein he said, that to date those people appearing before the committee have, in fact, been suppor ters of the Cattle Producer s Association then I looked at your name there and I realized that of the people I've heard, apart from Ms. Soper, I would think that all the people who have appeared before the committee this evening have been directors of the Cattle Producers Association. A MEMBER: Duly elected. HON. W. PARASIUK: But they are appearing.

I can understand they're appearing on behalf of the Cattle Produc ers Association to speak on behalf of the Cattle Produc ers Association. I was just commenting on Mr. Downey's comment that everyone here, who he inferred are appearing as private citizens, have appeared to date as directors of the Cattle Produc ers Association. Yes, I ask the question specifically of Mr. Sigurdson as to his function, and I did so in response to the editorializing of Mr. Downey. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there further questions of Mr . Sigurdson? A MEMBER: Well, I can hear the stuff well. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please.

Any further questions of Mr. Sigurdson? Mr. Sigurdson, I don't think members have any further questions. Thank you very much. 442 MR. G. SIGURDSON: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Gentlemen, the next individual on the list is Mr. Wayne Dawydiuk, private citizen. Mr. Dawydiuk. MR. W. DAWYDIUK: One correction I'd like to make, I am here on a twofold purpose as a private citizen and cattle prod ucer, also as Chairman of the Southeast Beef Cattle Impr ovement Association, headquartered out of Vita. I'd like to speak in opposition to the bill. I have a few points down here.

I haven't got anything elaborate written down so I'll kind of run through it real quick and see what bounces off. For the life of me, I can't see what reasons the government can have for attempting to - I guess I'l l have to use other people's words - emasculate or demolish the organization which many producers have spent many long hours and many dollars and out-of­ pocket expenses to get organized and on the road.

The government seems to have a hangup over the compulsory end of the checkoff, and yet have no problem accepting compulsory provisions contained in marketing board legislation or deductions for union mem bership or government automobile insurance schemes. You want it, you pay it, that's all there is to it. Here at least, if the producer isn't in agreement with the job the association's been doing for him, or doesn't want to belong, wants a free ride, he sends in his request and gets his refund back. I just can't see how you could get anything simpler than that.

Our present check off system, I think, overcomes the natural general apathy of people when it comes to supporting any organization. Unless a person sees an immediate visible return for a dollar spent, the spending gets put off till tomorrow. I'm sure there are many guys that if the Manitoba Hydro wouldn't come around and disconnect the hydro at the end of the second month,

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 probably wouldn't pay for their hydro bills as long they know that everybody else would foot the bill, and they'd get it for nothing. it's the sort of thing that the spending is a lot easier if you don't have the money in your pocket in the first place.

If it's taken off at source and then the guy at the end of the year looks back and he has to fill out this application form for his refund and he has a chance to evaluate the work that the association has been doing if he figures he's getting his two bits or 50 cents or up to what? - it's a dollar now - if he's getting his money's worth out of it. Then, I think that a guy should sit down and take a look at where the hell he's going once in a while and see if he is really getting his money's worth out of the thing.

If they left it up to producers to voluntarily come up with the money, for my part unless I knew damn well that there'd be more than 50 percent of the producers putting their share into it, they ain't going to see my doll ar. There is no other way of knowing - to my knowledge anyway- that the other producers are putting in their share if it's not taken off at the time of sale. If they want it back, if the guy wants it back bad enough to fill out the forms and every thing else, I think he's entitled to it.

If it's left up to the guys to individually write out that cheque for $50, or $1 00, or $15 0 or 50 cents; the dollar's worth 50 cents. it's the type of thing that - well, tomorrow, and that's about where it's going to wind up too. I don't see where there will be a provincial organization to look after the interests of the cattle producers of the province.

Another illustration I think of the producer apathy, or like Terry was getting at, that the only time you hear from the producers is when they're in trouble or basically when they'r e in a financial sque eze or the y got something squeezing them is just a lack of interest in the elections of our association.

All the guy's got to do is mark an X on the ballot and throw the damn thing back in the mail and they can't be bothered. it's a good thing that we get directors elected that are willing to put in the amount of time and work that is involved with it to be able to keep it going with as little interest as there is. I don't know if very many of the political parties or MLAs would want to - or maybe they do get that same amount of action - the only time they hear from anybody is when they're after his ass, I guess.

Once again, I'm going to stress that we feel that the present refund system is relatively simple for those producers who don't wish to financally support the MCPA. lt provides the producers with a chance to re­ assess the cost-benefit ratio of their contributions to the association while he's filling out his application form. Bill 90 removes effectively removes the right to collection of a checkoff at source, through deletions to Bill 25. Without collections at source, there is not going to be any organization as far as I can see. I' ll take any questions now I think. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Dawydiuk.

Questions? Mr. Orchard. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr . Dawydiuk. MR. W. DAWYDIUK: Just call me Wayne. 443 MR. D. ORCHARD: You mentioned you belonged to the Southeast Cattle . . MR. W. DAWYDIUK: Beef Cattle Impr ovement Association. MR. D. ORCHARD: Beef Cattle Im provement Association. Now a numb er of people presenting briefs have referred to the support of the organization in view of the fact that a very small percentage wish to have a refund. Now, the Beef Improvement Association, could you put a percentage of sup port amo ngst the association?

Have you got a bunch of vocal people who wish to not sup port the Cattle Prod ucers Association, or is there general support of it within that association of producers? MR. W. DAWYDIUK: I'd say there is general support in favour of the MCPA. HON. W. PARASIUK: Sir, you paint a fairly pessimistic picture regarding apathy within the Cattle Producers Association. Has that existed for a long time? You're saying that if we don't have, in a sense, the power of the government to bring about compulsory checkoffs, that the organization really will wither away because of apathy within the membership.

Has that been a condition that's existed for a long time? MR. W. DAWYDIUK: I think it's a condition that exists within society as a whole, not only in the beef indust ry. HON. W. PARASIUK: Therefore, do you think then that voluntary associations should in fact be established, in a sense, by the state, or should they be established by themselv es and oper ate effectively and independently as volunt ary organizations without the state being involved? MR. W.

DAWYDIUK: As long as we have a half a dozen or a dozen beef organizations running to our Minister of Agriculture saying we want this, we want that, the Minister's going to stand there and say, well, what the hell you guys want. We've got one organization that's representing all the producers and for the benefit of all the producers' programs through fair representation through a board of directors elected from 14 districts spread out through the whole province, a fair cross

section of different aspects of the beef industry on the board . What other way are you going to get an organization that's going to cover all the bases of the beef industry for the benefit of the whole industry, without everybody in the ind ustry putting in a proportionate share of his production marketings to fund it? MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions from members of the committee? Seeing none, Wayne, thank you very much for coming tonight. The next person on our list is Mr. Guy Johnson, private citizen. Mr . Johnson. Mr. Johnson doesn't appear to be here. Next, Mr . John Whitaker, Local 51 6, Ma nitoba Farmers Union. I think they mean National Farmers Union.

Tuesday, 26 July, 1983 MR. J. WHIT AKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm representing Local 516 of the National Farmers Union. I come from Erickson. This brief is in support of Bill 90, which will change The MCP A Act to make the checko ff volun tary. Considering the type of organization the MCPA has developed into, we think it is appropriate for their checkoff to become voluntary and cannot understand their reluctance to accept funding by voluntary checkoff. They have been in existence for over thr ee years and have established some sort of track record with cattle producers.

If they have been doing things which cattle producers agree with and if cattle producers feel that their contributions have been well spent, then they will continue to suppor t the MCP A thr ough volu ntary check off and the MCPA Board of Directors will be able to take satisfaction in the fact that they are running a truly needed and appreciated organization. The organization would no longer be funded because the checkoff refund procedure is arranged so that, for most cattle producers, obtaining the refund is not worth the bother.

If however the association has not been doing the sort of things that cattlemen feel they need, then going to a voluntary checkoff will doom the association and the board of directors should accept its demise. it is our view that the MCPA has does nothing useful for cattlemen and that going to a voluntary checkoff will result in its disappearance. Our main objection is that the MCPA has been unconcerned with the most serious issue facing cattle prod ucers, that of the marketing system and getting a fair return for what they're producing.

I have attended two district meetings and two annual meetings of the MCPA, and whenever anything to do with the marketing system was raised, the board of directors showed no interest. Most cattle producers know that they are not getting a sufficient return for their product from the marketplace. Yet when some sort of alternative marketing scheme is proposed, like the Beef Income Assurance Plan, the MCPA Board fight against such a plan with all their resources. As long as the MCPA can purport to represent the views of Manitoba's cattlemen, changes to our present marketing system will be very difficult.

Ins tead of marketing, the MCPA has undertaken numerous other activities of less importance to cattle producers, many of which are handled by the Provincial or Federal Governments, or they have spent their time attending numerous meetings of questionable concern to the average cattle producer or by attending hearings such as this, in inordinately large numb ers.

Their activity account, as supplied by the MCPA, ind icates that over half of their functions inv olve attending meetings and we question the benefit to cattle prod ucers of activities such as, and I qu ote, "Repr esented Manitoba producers at the international dinner at AgriVision." The activity account will be appended to my presentation. I certainly hope that the directors attending here today are paying their own expenses and are not counting on Manitoba's cattle producers to pay for their trip to the city.

In summar y, we wish this bill speedy passage so that the popularity of the MCPA can be quickly put to the test. 444 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr . Whi taker . Any que stions for Mr . Whitaker from mem bers of the committee? Mr . Uskiw. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Whitaker, are you making the case that governments have no business in establishing private association by statute law? MR. J. WHITAKER: Certainly associations of this type which are more of a club than anything useful. As I say, our chief objection to this association is the fact that it hasn't addressed the most serious concern of cattle producers. HON. S.

US KIW : Would you make any claim to representing any numb er of cattlemen in Manitoba through your association? MR. J. WHITAKER: I'm the President of Local 516 and, as such, would represent about 80 farmers, most of which are cattle producers. HON. 5. USKIW: Would you concur with the theory that even the NFU should not be set up in this way, by way of statute law? MR. J. WHITAKER: I personally would probably concur with that, although the NFU, in itself, is not opposed to compulsory organizations, considering their function. HON. S. USKIW: I'm aware. That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Mr . Downey.

MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, a question to Mr. Whitaker. One of the concerns that you've brought before the committee is that the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association have not had the ability to market or control the supply of beef. If the Cattle Producers Association were given that power to market and control the supply of beef through a marketing agency of that organization, would you then be in support of the Cattle Producers Association? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Whitaker. MR. J.

WHITAKER: I'd really want to see the sorts of powers that you were talking about giving them before I answered that; it's quite important. MR. J. DOWNEY: But you could accept that as a principle and could, after looking at it an reviewing it, could be a possibility that you would support that kind of action. MR. J. WHITAKER: If the MCPA were taking an active role in doing something about marketing situation and the price we receive for our beef, something that we consider to be useful, I may not be here presenting the view that I'm presenting. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr . Chairman, a further question. Mr.

Whitaker has indicated that the reason the cattle producers have not opted out of the MCPA is the fact

TUesday, 26 July, 1983 that it's too much bother. How would you say there's too much bother if it's, in fact, a matter of both dollars and principle that a farmer wouldn't sit down and write a letter requesting his funds and telling the Cattle Prod ucers Association that he or she did not want to participate? How would that be too much bother when it came to both principle and money, if that was the case? MR. J. WHITAKER: lt wasn't too much bother for me this year because, for the first time, I did request my money back.

We have some very highly principled people within our local though, who are violently opposed to the MCPA, who have not taken the time to obtain their money back. There are two different expiry dates on the two types of checkoffs and you have to write every year. I cannot write in and say I want to be taken off until I let you know I want back in. lt is a little cumbersome. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr . Chairman, I do agree that there has been a good case made that it could be somewhat cumbersome or more cumbersome than what a lot of producers feel and it's a point that has been considered by myself.

I have a further question and this is strictly dealing with representation of the cattle producers and speaking on behalf of the cattle producers which the cattle producers' organization has done very effectively as we've heard, not only today, from the Consumers' Association but private citizens and represenation from the association itself, to effectively represent a farm org anization, do you not think that that farm organi zation should have an adequate funding mechanism which would give them the financial support to do the research, to hire the people and to do that effective job? MR. J.

WHITAKER: Such an association would certainly be an advantage to the farm community but I would much rather see it come voluntarily through education. I would challenge your commen t though that the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association represent cattle producers, because I have been to their annual meetings and their district meetings. I know how many people show up. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well in dealing with that specific question, you as a representative of the Farmers Union speaking here tonight to The Cattle Prod ucers Association Act, Bill 90 is proposed to remove the funding support of that organization.

Do you feel that your organization is adequately funded and you're able to carry out, nationally or provincially, the kind of work that you feel as a representative of the Farmers Union, are you able to adequately carry out your role as a spokesman for those people in the farm community that want to be a part of your organization? Do you feel you've got the funds to do it? MR. J. WHITAKER: I think you said this bill is removing the funding support for the MCP A. it's not doing that, it's just changing the way the checkoff is collected. As far as the NFU is concerned, I'm sure we all wish we had more money.

We're not adequately funded. 445 MR. J. DOWNEY: If you had the kind of mechanism in place that the cattle producers have, would you feel that you could do a better job in representing the farm community? MR. J. WHITAKER: If I was only getting the numb er of farmers out to our meetings as they are getting out to theirs, I don't think I would perpetuate the farce. Although you had the money, you obviously didn't have the supp ort of the prod ucers. There's ob viously something wrong somewhere. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, a final question to Mr. Whitaker.

If the government were to indicate to the Cattle Producers Association at this point that they would be prepared to leave Bill 25 and remove Bill 90 from the Legislature, and over the next period of a few months discuss with the Cattle Producers Association and consultation with your organization, the Farmers Union, the consultative process where the marketing concept could be fully evaluated - because we now have a marketing system provided through the government through compulsory joining-up and marketing through the government system - would you then change your position and say we should leave Bill 25 as it is, and withdraw 90 so that the consultative process could, in fact, take place with the cattle producers and the government and your organization?

MR. J. WHITAKER: I would hesitate to answer the hypothetical question, because I think it's impossible to happen. I'v e heard Larry Clifford once too often. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Orchard. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Whitaker, you indicated in your comments