Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 34A (32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-34a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 15 April, 19 82 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. D. James Walding (St. Vital): Presenting Petitions ... Reading and Receiving Petitions PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. PHIL EYLER (River East): Mr . Speaker, I would like to present the Second Report of the Standing Comm ittee on Public Utitilies and Natural Resources. MR.

CLERK, Jack Reeves: Your Standing Comm ittee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources beg leave to present the followi ng as their Second Report: Your Comm ittee met on Thursday, Apri l 15 , 19 82 to consider the Annual Report of the Manitoba Tele phone System. Your Committee received all information desired by any member from Mr . Go rdon W. Holland, General Manager, Mr . Saul Mil ler, Chairman, and members of the staff of Manitoba Telephone System with respect to all matters pertaining to the Annual Report and the business of the Manitoba Telephone System.

The ful lest opportunity was accorded to all members of the Comm ittee to seek any information desired. Your Comm ittee examined the Annual Report of the Manitoba Telephone System for the fiscal year ending March 31 , 19 81 and adopted the same as presented. All of which is respectfully submitted. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. EYLER: Mr . Sp eaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Riel that the Report of the Committtee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. CONRAD SANTOS (Burrows): Mr .

Speaker, your · Comm ittee of Supply has considered certain resolu tions, directs me to report prog ress and asks leave to sit agai n. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Wolseley thatthe Report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. 14 91 HON. LAURENT DESJARDINS (St.

Boniface): In keeping with my customary practice of regularly informing the House of the status of negotiations with the Manitoba Medical Association I am pleased to report that I, and members of my staff, had a frank and amicable meeting this morning with members of the Exec utive of the MM A. While no decisions were made I was he artened by the tone of the meeting and I believe that the discussion which took place ga ve each party a better appreciation and understanding of the other's position. Followi ng the meeting, Mr .

Sp eaker, I wrote to the MMA - a copy of my letter is attached and it reads, and I quote: "De ar Dr . Pearson: I wish to thank you for the meet ing held in my office this morning at which time we discussed the contents of your April 1 2th letter. Ma y I, first of all, state that I was encouraged by the tone of the meeting this morning and appreciated very much the frank exchange of information and, in particular, the explanation given by your delegation concerning the matter of an earlier deadline with regar d to the review of the MM A's collective bargai ning policy.

I can appreciate your concerns but may I reiterate my position with regard to the study deadline of November 1 st. I explained that we would do everything possible to have the study completed at an earlier date but, in any event, I confirmed that the study wou ld be com pleted no later than November 1s t. "In explaining this time frame I reminded you that not only I but my other colleagues on the Cabi net Sub-c ommittee will be heavily committed over the next two months to our responsibilities in the Legisla ture, responsibilities that require our attendance bo th night and day.

I also ag ree, however, with your posi tion that a substantial amount of staff work could be carried out during the time frame in order that I, and my colleagues, could have all information avai lable as soon as we are in a position to put our attention to this important issue. "With regard to the second question included in your letter concerning to what extent the associa tion will be called upon to assist in this review, I further explained that the Sub- committee of Cabinet has been designated as a fact-fi nding committee and not a negotiating committee.

As such they will be expected to receive briefs from the Manitoba Medical Associa tion and other interested individuals or groups. Th ese briefs will relate, not only to the proposed MM A's collective bargaining policies, but also we may be seeking submissions from other groups in the health industry and, indeed, other Provincial Go vernments who could be effected by such policies. I also indi cated to you that it was my intention to place this whole matter on the agenda of the upcoming Federal Provincial Health Ministers' Conference to be held in Ottawa the latter part of Ma y.

"To be more specific, with regard to your question concerning the involvement of the MM A and other groups in a review process, I would see a review tak ing place as follows: "1. I wou ld request a complete and extensive writ ten submission from the MMA setting out, not only the principles you wish to prove, but also the mechanics

Thursday, 15 April, 1982 to be utilized in implementing the principles. "2. Following our review of the foregoing wr itten submission we will then invite the MMA to a meeting or a series of meetings to discuss your submission to ask pertinent questions in order that we understand your position thoroughly. "3. We may then be seeking submissions from other interested groups; that is the College of Physicians and Surgeons or indeed any individual or group of practicing physicians who may have a different point of view. "4.

We will be consulting with other provincial gov ernments and the Federal Go vernment on the principle of binding arbitration and the impact that this principle wou ld have in their provinces if accepted by Manitoba. "5. Finally, after all of the above has occurred, the Sub-com mittee of Cabi net will make a determination as to whether or not the proposal is, in their opinion, in the best interest, not only of the practicing physi cians, but also the residents of Man itoba, following which we will make our recommendation to Cabi net. "6.

After discussing with Cabi net and caucus a decision will be made and the Sub-c ommittee of Cabi net will ag ain meet with the executive of the MMA to advise them of the final decision of government on this complex and far-r eaching principle. "7. If the decision of go vernment was to accept some or all of the proposed MMA Collective Bargain ing Policies, we would enter into discussions with the MMA immediately to determine what changes in leg islation would be required in order that such policies could be implemented during the 19 83-8 4 Session of the Legislature. "I would hope, Dr .

Pearson, that with our frank exchange today, . together with the foregoing com mitments, that your association now realizes the serious commitment that go vernment has made to the review of the proposed MMA Collective Bargai ning Policies and ttiat the time of this review, whether it take one month or six months, is not the important issue. I would hope that with this commitment your executive wou ld now see fit to recommend to your membership this course of action and instruct your bargaining team to return to the table in order that a fair and equitable fee

schedule for the year 19 82-8 3 can be negotiated as quickly as possible. Yours truly." Mr . Sp eaker, I believe that the MMA now under stands the serious commitment we have made to the review of its collective bargaining policies and I am hopeful will recommend this position to its member ship and also resume fee negotiations with the Com mission. Thank you, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Ga rry. MR. BUD SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr . Speaker, I wish to thank the Honourable Minister for his state ment and assure him on behalf of the Opposition that it is received with interest and with relief.

Regardless of one's position on the issue of binding arbitration, whether one is for it or whether one is agai nst it or whether one simply has questions about it, the fact of the matter remains that it has been requested in go od faith by the MMA and that the Province of Manitoba, regardless of politics, regardless of stripe of govern ment, has a commitment and an obligation to the MMA and to the medical profession to explore and examine that principle and that concept with them.

I believe that the steps and mechanics for the review procedure which the Minister and his colleagues have proposed are worthy and though a considerable dis tance towards meeting that obligation, we will await the response of the MMA with interest indeed. I'm sure all Man itobans will be relieved to learn of the Min ister's assessment of the situation as one that at least reflects an improvement in tone, as he puts it. It would appear that the climate is improving and we'll hope for a speedy resolution, Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabl ing of Reports ... Notices of Motion ...

Introduction of Bills INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have a number of guests this afternoon including 50 students of Grade 9 standing of the Hugh John Mac donald School. The se students are under the direction of Mr . Zi lkie and this school is in the constituency of the Honourable Min ister of Education. There are five students of Gr ade 4 standing of the R.F . Mor rison School. The se students are under the direction of Mr s. Woo d.

This school is in the consti tuency of the Honourable Member for Kildonan. We have 50 students from the Dr . D.W. Penner School . These students are under the direction of Mr . Horn. This school is in the constituency of the Hon ourable Member for Ni akwa. Mr s. Virginia Lewis, an exchange teacher from Cape Cod, Ma ssachusetts, who has been teaching in Portage la Pr airie, is a guest of the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. 1492 On behalf of all the honourable members of the Leg islature, I welcome you here today. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR.

STERLING LYON (Charleswood): Mr . Sp eaker, I have a question for the Acting Premier in the absence of the Fi rst Minister. Sir , having had the opportunity to review the preliminary Hansard sheets which your office kindly made available to members of the House and to confirm, Sir , the statements that were made by the Minister of Agriculture, as I stated yesterday in the House and I read them, Sir , for the record and I read them understanding, Sir , that these are the prelimi nary Hansards which are not in the final form.

I regret I don't have a citation to give as to a page, but the portion in question was this: "Mr . Uruski: - Wh at does ownership have to do with the provision of food? Mr. Enns: Isn't that an interesting state ment? Isn't that an interesting statement? Now, Mr. Chairman, if ever I' ve been invited to give a lengthy forty-minu te, two -hour , three-h our, four-h our

Thursday, 15 April, 1982 speech .. . "and on and on he goes. Then, a few minutes later, Mr . Enns agai n says, "Mr . Chair man, when the Minister of Agriculture tells me, what does land ownership have to do with agricu lture food production, then I suspect we are in serious trouble in this province." That was the first quotation, Mr. Sp eaker.

The second quotation to which I make reference is also from the preliminary Hansard and it quotes the Minister of Agr iculture, Sir , as making the follow ing comment in the course of the longer statement: "The very system that the Leader of the Opposition speaks about, that he is so opposed to, Mr. Chairman, we will eventually come about and wha t happened in the Soviet Union, we are slowly coming about to that. " Mr . Chairman, I'm reading from the preliminary Hansard record. Mr .

Chairman, in the light of these serious statements about private land ownership in the Province of Manitoba, can the acting Premier tell the Ho use whether those statements represent the considered view and policy of the New Democratic Party Go vernment of Manitoba and if they do not, Sir , will the First Minister be asking, as he should, for the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minis ter of Agriculture. HON. BILL URUSKI {Interlake): Mr.

Chairman, yes terday I regret that I was not in the House and then when I was in the Ho use to answer the challenge of the Leader of the Opposition, he, I presume was also out of the Chamber in terms of how he interpreted my remarks and took them out of context. I was respond ing to his speech that he made in this House speaking about how lands were going; how the ownership of land .. . and if he, Mr .

Sp eaker, if he wou ld have read my remarks with respect to the philosophy of this government in terms of promoting the family farm, and if he looks at that speech, and he picks out the comment that it was our preference that owner operators are the best and most desirable form of farming, Mr . Chairman, he will then know; at least, maybe he wants to twist it in a way that he didn't get the media that he wanted initially when he made that speech. But, the fact of the matter is, I have no apolo gi es to make.

We know that the number of farm lands and the percentage of farm lands that are now being rented and farm sizes are increasing, and the numbers of farmers on farms in Manitoba are decreasing. Mr. Chairman, that is a fact of life. In fact, almost one out of every two farmers in Manitoba are now renting land and it's an increase. We are moving to larger and . larger farms, Mr.

Chairman, and history will repeat itself in terms of farmland and farm sizes, whether it be farms or businesses are being controlled by fewer and fewer people and primarily people who have the dollars in which to purchase them, not people who would want to be desirous of farming. It is only the wealthy and the elite that are predominantly control ling farmland. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. MR.LYON: Mr.

Speaker, even more, after listening to this attempt at exculpation by the Minister of Agricul ture for allowing his real beliefs to come to light about the Soviet system of land holding coming full circle in this province, to use his words. Mr. Sp eaker ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Do es the Honourable Minister of Agriculture have a point of order? MR. URUSKI: Mr . Sp eaker, I rise on a point of privi lege. The Leader of the Opposition continues to impute motives into the speech I made, and the speech I made was in response to remarks that he made in his comments to this Leg islature. MR.

SPEAKER: I don't believe the Honourable Minis ter has a point of privilege. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. LYON: Mr . Sp eaker, in the light of the words used by the Minister of Agriculture which I have read into the record of the House, and he can shilly and shally and worm his way all he wants, but he said it, in the light of that dangerous statement of policy on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, is the Acting Premier going to tolerate that kind of mentality in the Cabi net? Will they not be seeking the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Eco nomic Development. HON. MURIEL SMITH (Osborne): Mr . Speaker, it defies imag ining how the Leader of the Opposition can hear what has been said and interpret it the way he has done.

The Honourable Minister of Agriculture was making the point that the current market system of land ownership is leading to concentration of ownership in fewer hands with larger plots; that is supposed to be the condition we do not want. - (I nterjection)- Well, of course, it's not the So viet system but it's the thing you don't like about the So viet system, wher e there is concentration of ownership or great large groupings.

If you would listen, Sir , to the Minister of Agriculture, you would see that his policies are designed to produce the eco nomic conditions wh ere large numbers of family sized farms can exist and thrive. MR. LYON: Mr . Speak er, my question then is ag ain to the Acting Premier. Is the Acting Premier telling us and telling the people of Manitoba and I use the quotes of her colleag ue, the Min ister of Agricul ture: "The very system that the Leader of the Opp osition speaks about he is so opposed to, Mr.

Chairman, we will eventually come about and what happened in the Soviet Union we are slowly coming about to that. " Mr . Speaker, is the Acting Premier then saying that. is the considered land policy of the NOP government? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minis ter of Economic Development. MRS. SMITH: Mr . Speaker, does the Leader of the Opposition still not realize that what the Min ister of Agriculture was saying was that if we do nothing to interfere with the current inequitable unbalanced 1493

Thursday, 15 April, 19 82 effects of the market system, which is concentrating ownership of land in fewer hands, that will be the result? If we do nothing, Sir , that was the imputation. I cannot understand how the Leader of the Opposition can so misinterpret what the Minister of Agr iculture has said. MR. LYON: Mr . Speaker, will the Acting Fir st Minis ter, who obviously is unable to come to gr ips with the seriousness of these statements by her colleag ue, will she take as notice on behalf of the Fir st Minister of the very serious question that is being asked? Mr .

Speaker, as well, will the honourable members in the back bench of this go vernment indicate to their constitu ents and to their people whether they support the Soviet type of land holding system for Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr . Sp eaker, through you to the Minister of Agriculture, did he meet with the Man itoba Farm Bureau and the Cattle Produc ers Association before introducing the Inter est Rate Relief Prog ram and the Beef Mai ntenance Program? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono ur able Min ister of Agriculture. MR. URUSKI: Mr .

Speaker, the entire Cabinet met with the Farm Bureau; I met with the Farm Bureau at one of their meetings and I met with the Cattle Pro ducers who are members of the Farm Bureau on sev eral occasions. MR. DOWNEY: Mr . Sp eaker, did he consult with them before introducing the programs on those two spe cific prog rams or, Mr . Speaker, is he saying that the individuals who were reported in today's press, that they are incorrect in their statement that he did not meet with them?

Is he goi ng to confirm the fact again that he met with them and consulted with them before introducing that progr am or is he going to accuse the members of the Farm Bureau, the farm community, of misleading the public in a press statement? MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I did meet with the Farm Bureau. Wha t I didn't do is allow them to writ e our program, Mr . Sp eaker. What I did, Mr . Speaker, right after we were elected, one of the many speeches on radio that I had made, I didn't have to go out to seek consultations with people. People were phoning me, asking me for meetings, giving me advice and, Mr .

Sp eaker, the Farm Bu reau gave us advice. They pres ented a brief to Cabine t; the Cattle Produ cers presented several briefs to myself; many other organ iza tions presented their views to myself. So , Mr . speaker, obviously they may not h.ave liked their input, but surely it was open to them to present their views and they did, because the Mani toba Cattle Producers Association, who are members of the Farm Bureau were, I wou ld assume, the spo kesmen for the Farm Bureau and the lead grou p in that organization who have presented their views to myself on several occasions. MR. DOWNEY: Mr .

Speaker, can the Minister confirm that he did not listen to the recommendations of the Farm Bureau or the Cattle Producers Association and wou ld he confirm that it was one Mr . Bill Ja nssen that wrote the program for the beef producers of the province? MR. URUSKI: Mr . Sp eaker, the program that is pres ented was presented to this Leg islature and to the people of Manitoba by myself and my colleagues and I, as the Minister of Agriculture, take full responsibility for that program. Mr .

Speaker, the advice that we've received is a grouping of advice from all segments of agr iculture in Manitoba and the Farm Bureau per se if they really wanted to make an additional submission, and they did to Cabi net, but a specific submission based on beef, they certainly were under no con straint to do so because many groups made their presentations to myself and to our government with out me going to them cap in hand and saying, will you please give me a submission? My door has always been open.

If they have certain suggestions to make, they, like any other group in rural Manitoba, are cer tainly welcome to make their views known. MR. DOWNEY: In other wor ds, Mr . Speaker, wha t the Minister is saying then, he is in disagreement with.the fact that - I'll quote from the press report - "The Manitoba Cattle Producers Assoc iation, a Farm Bureau member, put forward a proposal to Uruski, but delegates said they were never appr oached for con sultation on development of a plan," Mr . McCor quo dale said. Is he now saying that is incorrect? MR. URUSKI: Mr .

Speaker, I' ve made my views known; the member can quote from press all he likes. I'm not prepared to respond to the press, I' ve made my state ment as to how the consultation went. If the member doesn't like what went on, he knows how he can han dle it, Mr . Sp eaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Pembina. 14 94 MR. DONALD ORCHARD (Pembina): Thank you, Mr . Sp eaker. My question is for the Minister responsi ble for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. Is the government, through Autopac, proceeding to enter the automobile parts business in this province? MR. URUSKI: Mr .

Speaker, one should realize that the costs of parts have been escalating so rapidly in terms of the last several years. We certainly want to examine the implications that the amount of used parts could be increased so that we wou ld not be paying out the great vast sums of money on new parts in terms of replacement. We certainly wou ld want to examine that; I thank the member for that sug gestion. MR. ORCHARD: Mr . Speaker, that is not my sugges tion, I believe it is a recommendation that the Minister has made to the Public Insurance Corporation.

In the course of reviewing that suggestion the Minister has made to Autopac, could the Minister inform the House as to how many small businesses would be forced to close and how many layoffs wou ld occur

Thursday, 15 April, 1 982 from such government intervention and government takeover of the parts business? MR. URUSKI: Mr . Sp eaker, the Member for Pembina made that suggestion and I thank him for it. The memb er should also look at the ramifications or the history of the parts industry in the Province of Sas katchewan who have been recycling automobile parts for nigh on 20 or 30 years in a co-oper ative effort with the recycling industry.

The recycling industry now provides a certain percentage of parts to the automo bile insurance corporation and I would assume that they would continue to provide those parts even though Autopac may consider, but certainly that's an area that should be considered, Mr . Sp eaker. MR. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr . Sp eaker.

At a time when there are record bankruptcies in the automobile industry and record layoffs in the auto mobile industry in the Province of Manitoba, could the Minister inform the House as to wha t impact this kind of government intervention would have on that industry in a troubled time and would the Minister further answer as to whether the implementation of this program wou ld allow the auction of Autopac cars to continue? MR. URUSKI: Mr . Sp eaker, I thank the honourable member for the sug gestion.

All those areas would have to be examined whether the auction would con tinue, whether we would recycle some cars, whether we wou ld auction some of them. Th ose are some of the questions obviously that wou ld have to be looked at as per his suggestion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Minnedosa. MR. DAVID R. (Dave) BLAKE (Minnedosa): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Min ister of No rthern Affairs in charge of the Environ ment could give the House some up-to-date information on the situation with the dead animals as a result of the serious fire in Brandon the other night? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Nor th ern Affairs. HON. JAY COWAN (Churchill): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Minnedosa had addressed this issue yesterday in the question period and I had informed him that I wou ld provide him that informa tion as soon as was possible. I think about a quarter to three, yesterday, I consulted with him personally to tell him that we were, at that time, as a department· involved with Mi d-West By-P roducts in order to determine if they wou ld take the carcasses at that time.

It has now been determined that those negotia tions have been stalled because of the high cost of haulage using that particular system. As a result, my department has been in contact with the City of Br an don and we have negotiated with them in respect to the use of the City of Brandon landfill waste disposal site, and they have decided to co-o perate with that. They've indicated a willingness to accept the animals. The carcasses will be buried in layers and lime will be put on top of each layer so as to ensure that the 1495 environmental conditions are being adhered to.

The dead stock, at the present time, are under a collapsed structure and we can't get to them until we get a crane in the area in order to lift the structure and get the dead stock out. We are informed that there is no real urgency in that regard although we are moving as qu ickly as possible. So to clarify that, we are informed that we have time to bring the crane in and to remove the animals in that way. Environmental staff should now be on site and should be examining not only the area but the waste disposal grounds in order to ensure that all the neces sary environmental requirements are being met.

Th e estim ate of dead stock at this time is 600 head of beef and 200 pigs and that's what we will be burying in the landfill site. It is legal to dispose of dead carcasses in this way. The Environmental Ma nagement Division will be on site to ensure that it is accomplished in an environmentally sound way and I hope that we will be able to proceed as soon as possible and once we have the heavy equipment in place to lift the structure in a sound and safe manner and then dispose of the car casses from that point on. MR. BLAKE: Yes, I thank the Minister for that up-to date information, Mr . Sp eaker.

I can see there is going to be some concern not only probably with a health problem but with that large number of animals being disposed of in a landfill site, I'm sure his department is looking into all of the features that make or present problems such as runoffs and dangerous things of that nature not only odours, but other factors that may present health hazards. MR. COWAN: As I indicated to the Member for Min nedosa, departmental staff will be on site during the operation, the removal and the disposal at the waste disposal grounds.

I'm assured that they in fact will ensure that all the environmental requirements are being adhered to in the proper way and for that rea son, while we share his concerns about potential harmful effects of this disposal process, we are assured that if we accomplish it in a way in which we intend to that those harmful effects will be minimized. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for For t Ga rry. MR. SHERMAN: A question on the same subject, Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister.

Can the Minister advise the House whether the Public Health Division of the Department of Health has been involved or consulted in this process in any way or whether envi ron men! and health are sti II operating in two separate worlds? MR.

COWAN: The member is obviously referring to a situation which existed under his administration. · I can assure him that we have be gun, not only begun, but we have continued to develop the type of co-o perative mechanisms which are going to be put in place to ensure that those departments are work ing even more closely together in the future and that is in no way to except his premise and his premise only to this date that there is a lack of co-or dination between the activities between the two departments.

Thursday, 15 April, 19 82 MR. SHERMAN: Very interesting, Mr. Speaker, except that in his answers up to this point, the Min ister has not made a single reference to public health or envir onmental health or the role of that division so I believe the question is justified as is a supplementary question. Can he advise the House where public health is involved in addressing wha t health hazards may be arising from that situation. MR.

COWAN: As we are dealing with a number of departments, I believe the proper course of action would be to consult with the Mi nister who also has some responsibility in that area and I will undertake to do so and report back to the member as shortly as is possible so that I can be assured myself that I'm pro viding to him the most accurate information possible and I do not want to answer on behalf of another Minister at this point. However, I will undertake those consultations. I'm certain that I will be able to provide a detailed response to the member in the very near future on that particular question. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. GARY FILMON (Tuxedo): Mr . Speaker, to the Minister of Environment, given the fact that in the past the landfilling of animal wastes has lead directly to the production of large amounts of methane gas, what is his department doing with respect to this recom mended process that they're going to be followi ng to ensure that or guard agai nst the production of methane gas through the landfilling of several 10 0 head of dead animal stock in one concentrated location? MR.

COWAN: As I indicated earlier in the question period, we have environmental staff, Environment Management Division staff who will be on site and will be examining the disposal process in order to ensure that the type of problem which has been addressed not only by the previous questioner, but by the members who have addressed other questions in respect to the situation will be taken into considera tion.

We will have an engineer on site, an engineer who is trained in waste disposal, who is trained in the proper procedures and methods by which we can dispose of this large quantity of dead carcasses and we will be following the process throughout; they will be in contact with myself as Minister responsible and will also be in contact with the other departments who are involved in this and we will undertake those pre cautionary methods which we feel are necessary to ensure. that the type of problem which the member has brought to the attention of the Ho use does not, in fact, exist. MR. FILMON: Mr .

Sp eaker, in view of the concern, can the Min ister assure the House or the people of Brandon that there will not be large quantities of methane gas produced as a result of this decision that he's taking at the moment? MR. COWAN: What I can assure the people of Bran don and the members of this House is that we wi ll undertake this disposal method in the appropriate manner; that we will put in place those precautionary measures which we believe are necessary to ensure that we have accomplished the disposal of the wastes of these dead carc asses in the proper away. Tho se assurances I have given him previously.

I will repeat those assurances to him and if he wants more detailed information which is of a technical nature, I will be pleased to provide that to him once I' ve had an oppor tunity to consult with my staff and get that detailed technical information, not only from the perspective of those individuals who are intimately involved in the disposal process at the present time, but from the perspective of those individuals who over the years under previous administrations have gained a great deal of expertise and a great deal of knowledge which they are bringing to bear to ensure that the very types of problems which are being addressed in this House are also being addressed at the waste disposal site and are also being addressed as we remove the dead stock from the place where they presently are.

MR. FILMON: The Minister is telling us that he doesn't know whether or not there will be significant production of methane gas and he doesn't know how they are going to safeguard against it. I would appre ciate him bringing forth a technical report at some future date that we could perhaps gain some assur ance from. MR.

COWAN: No t accepting the premise of the member's questions that we cannot in fact indicate to him that there will be no significant degree of methane gas produced and that we will in fact not have in place the proper procedures to ensure that this disposal is undertaken in the most environmentally sound way, I will be pleased to provide to him a technical report on the entire operation as soon as it becomes available and I wou ld appreciate his comments and his sugge s tions in that regard, as I know he's had some expe rience in this area as well.

I would appreciate having the opportunity to review his suggestions and criti cisms if they may exist at the time he has had an opportunity to read through that technical report. 1496 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. MR. LYON: Mr . Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labou r. Is the Go vernment of Manitoba giving any consid eration to the type of legislation that was introduced into the British Columbia Leg islature recently having regard to a ceiling on wage increases that can be given to the Civil Service? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labou r. HON.

VIC SCHR OEDER (Rossmere): No, Mr . Sp eaker. MR. LYON: Mr . Speaker, could the Minister inform the House as to the present status of negotiations with the Man itoba Go vernment Employees Association which negotiations, I understand, have been going on now for some several weeks? MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr . Speaker, the

Thursday, 15 April, 19 82 negotiations appear to be about on track in terms of the time of the year that we are at right now. We are in a position where some of the questions which were in issue in the beginning have been resolved and others are in the process of being resolved. We hope that we can get something more definitive within about the next six weeks or so. I don't think there's much more that I could add at this point. MR. LYON: Mr . Speaker, a further question on that point of negotiations.

Is the Minister aware of the fact or can he enligh ten the House as to whether or not public sector settlements in Canada have been run ning ahead of private sector settlements? MR. SCHROEDER: Well, Mr . Sp eaker, I don't believe that's clear if you go over the last number of years. The Leader of the Opposition has referred specifically to British Columb ia.

As he knows it's somewhat easier to bring in that kind of legislation in a province wh ere - just for instance the Deputy Min ister of Fi nance is earning somewhere over $90,000 a year as compared to, in Man itoba, where Deputy Min isters are earning somewhat less than $60,000 a year. So, when you compare those numbers, it is easy to talk about legis lation that will somehow equalize those people and as he well knows our negotiations and settlement will not result in settlements that will put us anywhere near some of those people who are talk ing about freezes.

Alberta is another example of a province that, because of its rich treasury has been able over the last number of years to take some of the senior civil ser vants from other provinces and that is something that I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition regrets as much as the people on this side do. MR. LYON: Well, Mr . Speaker, given the fact that the salar ies to which the Minister of Labour makes refer ence of Deputy Ministers represent excluded civil servants who are not covered by the Manitoba Go v ernment Employees Association negotiations.

Could the Minister, thereby making his response somewhat of an non sequitur, which we' re becoming rather accustomed to, could he advise at this stage whether or not his government is prepared to arrive at settle ments in the public sector which outdistance those that are being made in this province today in the private sector because of the economic times that we have in this province at the present time? MR. SCHROEDER: Well , Mr .

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, not so long ago, was on this side of the House at which time there was a settlement of - wha t was it - 14 percent for the Autopac employees just last fall. He recognizes I'm sure thatthere is some difficulty with respect to trying to keep any numbers. What we are looking at is trends across the country; we're looking at the trends in the private sector; we're looking at the trends in the public sector.

I'm sure he's also heard that teachers in the Province of Manitoba, recently a number of teachers' settlements have come in the area of 13 percent; some a little under; some a little over. Th ose are areas that obviously have to be looked at. We also have to look at some deterioration in terms of employment since last fall ; since the MacEachen Bud get. So, we are keeping up to date 1497 with the trends.

We are trying to make sure that the settlement will be a fair settlement from the perspec tive of the taxpayers of the province, and we' re trying to make sure that the settlement will be a fair settle ment with respect to the employees of the people of Man itoba. The Leader of the Opposition as well, I'm sure knows that there have been some anomalies created because of salary increases in the health sec tor with the nurses, for instance, in the hospitals as compared to the nurses who are in the employ of the provincial government directly etc. They are a number of these areas that we are looking at.

We hope, as I said before, that we can get to a fair settlement and we're trying for getting that settlement within the next six weeks hopefully. That doesn't mean that the settlement will be there in six weeks nor does that mean if it is not there that there's something seriously wr ong. It just means that we haven't come to an ag reement yet. MR. LYON: Well, Mr .

Sp eaker, accepting as we cer tainly do on this side of the House that our fundamen tal obligation as members of the Leg islature is to the taxpayers of Man itoba, is the Min ister of Finance able to tell us now when the taxpayers of Manitoba will be able to hear his Budget which will encompass all of these extra expenditures of his government which the taxpayers wil l have to pay for. When will we hear from him on a Budget date? MR. SCHROEDER: So on, Mr. Sp eaker, soon.

Several days ago I was reading the response of the Provincial Treasurer in Ontario, who was being asked a similar question and he indicated that because of the dela ys with respect to negotiations of the EPF and those types of arrangements, and because of the question as to whether or not Mr . MacEachen will see the light shortly, in terms of bringing in another Budg et or a Mini-Budge t or an economic statement which may change some of the numbers which we received last November. When we get that picture we will be able to tell in a little better or a little clearer way when the Bud get will come down.

We feel just as the Leader of the Op position does, that we would prefer to have that sooner rather than later. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Education. HON. MAUREEN HEMPHILL {Logan): Thank you, Mr . Sp eaker, you always catch me by surprise. I rise to respond to a question that came from the Honourable Member for Swan River asking about a letter that I had received from the Town of Swan River. I want to tell him that the response to the letter has been prepared.

I also want to indicate that I have some regrets in the delay for the amount of time that it took to respond, but the information came from two departments, Municipal Affairs and Fi nance Board, and that accounted for it. He didn't directly ask, I am wondering if he would like a response to the concerns raised about the impact of the school tax increase on the mill rate for the Town of Swan River. -(I nterjection)- Yes he would. No t wanting to give an overly long answer to a very

Thursday, 15 April, 1982 complex question, Mr . Speaker, I want to indicate that there are four factors that affect the large mill rate increase for Swan River and I just want to touch on the four of them. The first one is the amount of money put in by the Provincial Go vernment, and I think that this is the concern that would be raised by the members oppo site. It is only one factor. The second factor is the budget that is set by the school board themselves because only the school board controls expenditures.

I'm going to give some very simple statistics to give you an indication of how those factors affected the mill rate increase. Swan River got a 12 .5 CPI increase as did all others, they got both per pupil transportation and per pupil expenditure increase and an additional supplemental grant of $1 54, 000 that they would not have received had we not brought in that supplemental program. That reduced their mill rate impact by 4 mills. How ever, they brought in an expenditure increase, per pupil expenditure increase, in their budget of 19 .7 percent, Mr .

Sp eaker, and that is their right and their privilege and their priority that they can determine. We-gave them a per pupil increase of 16.5 percent. I think that's a reasonable increase. It combines the new supplemental prog ram, it recognized they were in a difficult position, but it did not meet the budget increase that they brought in - the per pupil budget of 19 .7 percent. They're also hit by declining enrol ment and this isn't their fault and I guess it isn't our fault, but a 3.6 percent increase in declining enrol ment has caused serious problems to their budget.

The two other factors I want to qu ickly touch on are the disparity in the assessment base and I understand that the district supervisor - there's been some changes made . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I realize that the Hon ourable Minister was replying to a question asked in the House in a previous Question Period but where an answer tends to be long or somewhat complex, per haps it would suit the House better if the reply were given in a different fashion in writing or as a statement by the Minister. In any case we are reaching theend of Oral Qu estion Period. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR.

CLAYTON MANNESS (Morris): Thank you, Mr . Speaker, last week I posed a question to the Minister of Agriculture regarding the Peat Land Farmers Association and their request for speedy considera tion of their project under the Agr o-Man Prog ram. Can the Minister indicate whether a decision has been made in this regard as yet? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Agricu lture. MR. URUSKI: Mr . Sp eaker, I told the honourable member that I was having the details of the proposals reviewed.

We've advised the association that there will be funding, but the scope, the review of the con tract and the proposals are now being undertaken. A decision, I hope, will be made quite soon. MR. MANNESS: I understand there is a $450, 000 available under the Agr o-M an Program to support this research. Is that sum still available for peat and soil research and if not, why not? MR. URUSKI: Mr . Sp eaker, that's part of the review and the scope of the project.

I want to understand wha t is to be undertaken and th.e reporting mecha nisms to who the group is responsible for this project and aspects of that nature and, of course, implicit in that is the amount of funding that will be on a basis of this proposal. Th ere maybe other proposals there as well. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mou ntain. MR. A. BRIAN RANSOM (Turtle Mountain): Mr . Speaker, the Minister of Energy and Mi nes said that a final ag reement on the Western Power Gr id should be completed within two years. Wou ld the Honourable Minister advise the Ho use from when he dates the two years.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mi nes. HON. WILSON PARASIUK (Transcona): Mr . Speaker, the discussions that had been taking place between three governments had indicated that it was a general hope on the part of all three parties that a final ag ree ment could be reached within two years. Mr . Sp eaker, that two-year period was a bit loose in terms of an exact date.

It was based on when an interim ag ree ment could be sig ned if that was one option or whether, in fact, another option of not signing an interim ag reement and proceeding to try and draft the complete and final agreement wou ld be the course taken. Wh at we are doing is trying to sign an interim ag reement in principle on principles and then pro ceed to expedite the negotiation of the final ag ree ment with an outer limit of two years. I use two years because that's the time requirement for the Saskatch ewan Go vernment to do its environmental impact asssessment under their legislation.

They have said that environmental impact assessment could take up to two years, and we are hoping that we could get an interim agr eement sig ned this summer and that that environmental impact assessment would take place. Hopefully, it might even take place sooner than within two years. Ho pefully, we could negotiate the final drafting, the final agreement before the end of two years, and I would expect that all parties are moving on that time schedule, but there is no fixed date as such. MR. RANSOM: Mr .

Sp eaker, can the Minister confirm very briefly that what he said is that the two years for the final ag reement will date from the time that an interim ag reement is concluded. 14 98 MR. PARASIUK: It's the general intention to try and get the final ag reement negotiated within a period of two years. It's our hope that we would do so sooner. There is no date fixed in stone as to a final date, but we are certainly trying to expedite it sooner than two

Thursday, 15 April, 19 82 years. People have talked in general terms of two years without specifying an exact date - all three parties, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Gov ernment House Leader. HON. ROLAND PENNER (Fort Roug e): Mr . Speaker ... NON-POLITICAL STATEMENT MR. SPEAKER: Order pl ease. The Honour able Member for Radisson. MR. GERARD LECUYER (Radisson): I wish to ask leave of the Ho use to make a non-p olitic al announcement. MR.

SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? (A greed) The Honourable Member for Radisson. MR. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As most of the members of the House will have definitely noticed, one of our colleagues has been absent from his seat for the last two or three weeks. I am referring, of course, to our colleag ue for Concordia who has been in the hospital, has undergone surgery, and is now out of the hospital since last Su nday and is recuperating at home. Although weak, he is in good spirits and hopes to be back in the Ho use, at least for short periods, starting next week.

I wou ld like to wish him well on the part of all the members of this House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Go vernment House Leader. COM MITTEE CHANGES MR. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I wou ld like to announce a change in committee meetings. The committee on Thur sday, Ap ril 22nd, Ec onomic Dev elopment, Channel Ar ea and Moose Logg ers, has been moved to Thursday, April 29th in order to accommodate a meet ing on that date, namely, Thursday, Ap ril 22nd, of Privileges and Elections. That's a very important meeting of that committee dealing with the Ombuds man question.

Thursday, Ap ril 22nd, 10 :00 a. m. in the morning for Privileges and Elections. Mr. Sp eaker, would you please call the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Uskiw? ADJOURNED DEBATE - CROW RATE MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Hon ourable Minister of Go vernment Services, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Roblin Russell -t he Honourable Member for Roblin-Rus sell. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin-Russell): Mr. 14 99 Speaker, I beg to indulge the House to have the matter stand. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR.

PENNER: I believe it was the intention of the Honourable Member for Roblin-R ussell to allow someone to speak in his place. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Gimli. MR. JOHN M. BUCKLASCHUK (Gimli): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have looked forward to this opportunity to speak on this resolution that has been on the Order Paper for a number of weeks; an issue that I sincerely believe is one of the most important pieces of business that this House will be dealing with during this particular Session.

It's not only a feeling that I have, but I would like to quote a very short quotation from Ju stice Emmett Hall who indicated in 19 78: "The continuance of the Crow rate is as funda mental to the unity of this country as any other con cept that we can think of." Not only is it important to the unity of the country, I think it is most important to the economic well-b eing of the Province of Manitoba. I must admit that I sit back in my seat trying with great difficulty to ascertain what the position of the Opposition is with respect to the Crow rate.

We are told so often that they represent the interests of rural Man itoba and yet we have heard, I believe, only one speaker on this resolution. I must admit for the past 24 hours I have been thinking very seriously about what the Member for Lakeside had to say about the Crow rate, I' ve thought about it and analysed it and I cannot determine a position. It wou ld seem that the members who claim to represent the interests of rural Man itoba don't have a position, or if they have a position, they are not willing at this time to let the people of Mani toba know what it is.

I should preface my remarks that a day or two ago a comment was made from the Opposition about the backbenchers not really understanding the issues of rural Manitoba and particularly of agriculture. I wel come this opportunity to speak on this issue, not as a farmer but as a person who has spent virtually his whole lifetime in rural Manitoba and continuing to live in rural Manitoba, and fully realizing the potential impact of the removal of the Crow rate on the type of lifestyle that most of us are accustomed to.

When I think about lifestyle, I have to think back to a comment that was made by the Member for Roblin Russell a few days ago about a business that had gone under in Russell, Man itoba. I am well acq uainted with that area having been raised in that area and still visiting that area quite often, well acq uainted with who Clement's General Motor dealership was. I can remember being a small boy and I believe we got our first car from Clement's agency. Clement started somewh ere in the 19 30s in Onanole and developed into Western Manitoba's largest General Mo tors deal ership for qu ite a number of years.

I still remember Fr ank Clement and that's because when I was on the farm I remember I used to trap a bit and Frank Cle ment, as a sideline, used to be a fur buyer. I can still remember the gentleman, wealthy as he was, the

Thursday, 15 April, 1982 large business that he had, being involved in buying pelts from the trappers in the area - a very indus trious gentleman, built up a tremendous business, a tremendous agency and I was really saddened to hear from the Honourable Member for Roblin-R ussell that this business was no longer in business. Now how did that happen? Well, I presume that he's no longer in business because people are no longer buying cars.

The people are still there in Russell; I'm not aware of any great depopulation in Russell, but I do know that any agency in a rural community has a fairly large trading area and I suspect what is happen ing is that the net farm income is decreasing, that there is less and less disposable cash and as a result some businesses go under. I believe that one of the primary reasons that there is less disposable cash throughout Manitoba, and particularly in rural Mani toba, is that farmers are facing ever increasing costs of production.

One of the costs of production is an absurd interest rate which is hurting many people drastically. So, because there is less disposable cash, the business go es under. I don't know how large Clement's was two or three weeks ago but I would just assume that they had 20 employees and we think of the employees with an income of, perhaps, 15 ,0 00 per annum. You now have $300, 000 that is not circulating in that community. Th ere is a cost to the local businessmen because they will no longer have the benefit of that income in the community.

Th ere will be greater pressure on those who remain in the community to pay for taxes that are no longer there. Schools will probably be under greater pressure to increase their mill rate because, while students may not be there, the programs are still there and someone has to pay the cost. There is a severe economic impact on the community of Russell. I mention the figure of about $300, 000 per annum.

Im ag ine the impact on rural Manitoba's economy if we multip lied that by 50-fo ld or 10 0-fold or 200-fo ld and that's the _extent of the impact when one consid ers what theTyr chniewicz Report has indicated the potential loss wou ld be to rural Manitoba's economy of around $60 million. A very very dramatic impact on rural Manitoba's economy. We hear so much about the Crow. It's not some thing that's just developed in the last two or three months. We've heard about it for the last number of years. Why is there this drive to get rid of the Crow?

Well, we hear that the railways are losing money and somehow or other they have to have money to stay in business to provide the type of services that farmers have been accustomed to. We have CNR, a publicly owned transportation system; CPR, privately owned; the CNR acting as if it were in the private sector. CPR certainly tries to gi ve us a hard- luck story. I think that it wo uld be worth recalling the history of CPR and what it has obtained in terms of monies from the country to develop to where it is today.

I note that the Minister of Transportation recently sent a letter, I presume to all Canadian Wheat Boar d producers stat ing the case for the need for increased transportation rates. I'd like to quote some figures from the latest issue of the Co-Oper ator. I know they happen to come from Ted Strain - whom the members of the Opp osi tion have very little faith in. I have seen very little of statements made by Mr. Strain that aren't correct. He indicates that Pepin had indicated that CPR had been - well, first of all we hear the stories about how CNR and CPR are losing money.

In 19 80, Canadian National had after-tax profits of $19 2 million. CPR had profits of $121 million. It's a real hard- luck story. Between '75 and 19 80, while total net farm income on the prairies fell 44 percent, C.N. increased its profits by 1, 533 percent, CPR increased its profits by 284 percent. One has to shed tears for those two organizations. In the letter that Mr . Pepin sent to farmers, he indi cated that CPR had received grants of $33 million of land; $25 million to build the railroad.

What Pepin had conveniently ignored was the fact that CPR was given 715 miles of rail line built by the Government of Can ada at a cost of nearly $40 million and he turned this all over to CPR without any charge. Accord ing to Statistics Canada CPR has received grants in excess of $10 6 million in cash and construction for public sources and nearly 44 million acres of land including mineral rights on those lands. So, Pepin's only out by something like $81 million and he's out by about 11 million acres. Minor errors I suppose.

One should perhaps take a look at wha t all these assets that were given to CPR would be wor th if we would take a return on those assets and project them till today's. I have some figures, I think they're worthy of note and I should raise them at this point. Just going back a bit. By Ju ne 30, 19 16, Canadian Pacific had received about $280 million in identifiable public aid. No w, if we allowed a return of 5.8 percent on that amount, today's value of those benefits is $10 .9 bil lion.

If we took the assets that have been given to C.P prior to 19 16, consider that they would have a return of about 5.8 percent, today's value would be some where about $1 0.9 billion. In addition, since '67, CPR has received $770 million in direct subsidies; also owes the people of Canada $1.2 billion in deferred income tax. Tha t's the total identifiable public aid to C. P. Limited, now stands at approximately $13 billion. Now, that is about what C.P. is worth. 1500 In other words, all the assets that C.P .

Rail, C.P . investments have today can be traced back to the gifts or to the benefits that were provided to them by the Go vernments of Canada in the early years of our history. They built a nation, they also built an immen sely large corporation which interestingly enough, after the split, while we hear so much about C.P. requir ing additional funds to maintain and to improve our transportation facilities are busy buying shopping plazas, condominums, resort hotels, certainly in the United States and probably all over the world. Well we certainly have to feel very sorry for Cana dian Pacific.

I think of Canadian Pacific going to the MinisterofTransportation and asking for more money, it reminds me so much of that poor little orphan, Oliver Twist approaching Mr. Bumble, I believe, with a little tin cup, and please Sir , may I have more? Tha t poor little orphan of the C.P. Investment Group, Can adian Pacific Railways. But, unlike Oliver Twi st, CPR does have many people who are on their side. Cer tainly, amongst them are civil servants in the Federal Go vernment.

Interesting to note from a book by Barry Wilson, Beyond the Harvest; I'm sure that some of the members opposite had a chance to look at this. He refers to wha t happened in that short period of time when Joe Clark was the Prime Minister of Canada.

Thursday, 15 April, 19 82 Within days of the assumption of power by the new Prog ressive Conservative Go vernment in June of '79, Cabinet Ministers were hearing from their senior bureaucratic advisers that the go vernment should deal with the freight rate question. So, we have Trans portation Minister, Dan Ma zankowski being lobbied; Ag ricultural Minister, John Wise; Fi nance Minister, Sinclair Stevens; Trade and Com merce Minister, Robert de Cotr et; all these people are being approached by senior civil servants with the message, you've got to do something about the freight rates; or simply, the Crow must go.

There were not only advisers to these Ministers who were on that same wave length but there were a number of senior Agr iculture Canada officials joining in that course arguing that change should be struc tured to reduce Federal Go vernment payments as the developmental benefits of a more vigor ous prairie ag ricultural economy began to be felt. The author of this book also makes note that the anti-Cr ow clause is being helped by the stance taken by the Alberta and Man itoba gov ernments. Now, that's rather interest ing.

We haven't heard too much from this Opposition wha t their position is with respect to the Crow, but Barry Wilson in his 19 81 book, and I don't think he can be found to be in error, indicates that the anti-Cr ow clause is being helped by the stance taken by the Alberta and Manitoba governments as well.

While their officials claim they are not actively campaigning for any particular solution to freight questions, both governments, through their Agr iculture and Trans portation Ministers, have let it be known that they think change must come and that the railways must receive more money from the marketplace rather than in subsidies from the government. -(l nterjection)- Well, I don't know. Is that the position of the members opposite today? We haven't heard. We've now been in debate on this resolution for a number of days.

We've heard only one speaker and I simply could not ascertain any position. -(l nterjection) Well, it seems that our Federal Go vernment are qu ite acq uiescent to or quite prepared to go along with the railways' requests, I mean, why shouldn't they. Th ere's an old saying, "he who pays the piper calls the tune," and it's on public record that C. P. is a considerable contributor to both the major political parties, has been over the last number of years I believe, something like 200, 000 to the Conservative Party in the last two or three years and about 15 7, 000 to the Liberal Party.

Wel l, you know, as I say, "he who pays the piper calls the tune." Well, there are many reasons why the Crow, why the Federal Go vernment should be wi lling to go along with changes in the Crow. I think that a lot of farmers have been misled that, you know, if we give the railways what they want, they'll provide us with better service. I wo uld sugge st that those farmers that feel that way should perhaps drive 10 0 miles south of here, talk to some of the farmers in Nor th Dako ta and see wha t better service they have had with much higher freight rates than we' re experiencing in Manitoba.

Tal k to the farmers at Dunseith, just a few miles south of Boi ssevain and not far from the home of the Member for Turtle Mou ntain, ask them what they're paying for transportation costs to Minneapolis. I believe it's somewhere, in the neigh- 1501 bourhood, of between 60, 70 cents a bushel. Trans portation costs to Seattle are somewhere in the neighbourhood of between $1. 60 and $1. 70 a bushel. Ask if they're getting much better service than they are in Manitoba or on the prairies of Canada.

I would suspect that the farmers would tell you they're getting the same type of, or even less service than what we're experiencing here. The same thing applies to Wyom ing. I just read some figures last night that from Wyoming to Seattle, it's in the neighbourhood of seven cents a bushel. Our farmers are paying 15 cents, 16 cents, 17 cents a bushel. If they pay three, four times more, there's no reason to expect better service. As a matter of fact, I will make some quota tions from the President of CPR which very firmly would lead us to believe that we need not expect any better service.

Interesting that, when Mr. Pepin made his announ cement in Wi nnipeg, he had indicated that Dr. Gi lson wou ld be hearing representation from farm leaders of farm organizations, not to discuss whether or not the Crow should go, but to discuss how much the trans portation rates should increase. It's a matter of he would have us accept the fact that the rates were going to increase, just a question of how much will they increase by. I don't recall seeing in that fancy little PR package that Mr.

Pepin handed out, seeing any gu idelines which would lead one to believe that the advisory committee was to come up with various positions for farmers to consider. I thought it was going to be a consultative process wh ere farmers were going to meet with Mr . Gi lson and his staff and let him know how they felt. But I notice from the latest Co-O perative, right on the front page, that we have a study paper from the staff of federal Crow negotiator, Dr. Clay Gilson. So now, instead of simply consulting and hearing what the farm leaders have to say, the commission is putting itself in an advocacy position.

They are going to dev elop positions and they are goi ng to have farmers react to them. Well, wha t kind of position papers are they coming up with? Well, here's one on variable rate. We've been talking about Crow rate. No w we' re on to another topic which has a potential for a very negative impact on rur al Man itoba. Variable rates for moving gr ain. They say they would allow the evolution of a more efficient transportation and handling system. Well, I suppose they're quite correct. Tha t's maybe not such a great statement.

Anybody knows that if you have fewer elevators, you can improve the efficiency of the rail ways in transporting that grain. But there's another cost that probably isn't being addressed. Tha t is the cost of farmers having to haul grain a longer distance, the cost of having to buy equipment to haul that grain and the cost to the province of upgrading and improv ing, maintaining a road system to accommodate this increased transportation and the loss of towns and villages, certainly. The paper says, rai lways could offer the grain industry cost incentives.

Railways are goi ng to offer cost incentives such as, unit train rates, seasonal rates and weekend loading and unloading discounts. So we are now into the discount business as well. But this is wha t the commission or members of the staff of the commission are doing, preparing advocacy positions for consideration. Well you turn to page two of this paper, a technical paper assessing

Thursday, 15 April, 19 82 alternative ways of distributing the Federal Go vern ment's $6 12 million Crow gap subsidy and it goes on to talk about a number of alternative ways of paying Crow gap. They talk here about, payments could be made to producers on the basis of cultivated acres on grain production or on the movement of statutory grain by rail. I thought that farmers, some time ago, had indi cated an unwillingness to go with the procedure of hundreds of thousands of cheques being mailed out to individual producers. Yet, this is wha t this staff of Dr. Clay Gi lson is dealing with.

The study on alterna tive ways of paying Crow gap concludes, increasing the Crow rates will reduce the impediments to growth in the livestock and processing sectors by reducing farm ga te prices of Crow grain from what they other wise would have been. I find that amazing that they would come to that kind of a conclusion. Ar e they not aware that there was a Tyrchniewicz Report done, commissioned by the previous administration? I find that simply incom prehensible that the commission would come up with that kind of a conclusion when I believe the assistant to Or.

Clay Gi lson was the author, was one of the authors, of this particular study. I don't know how one can change.his perspective in a matter of two or three years, 18 0 degree turn. Well, I suppose, it's whatever's convenient. If that's what the Minister of Transporta tion in Ottawa wants to hear, that's what we're going to give him and we're hearing it.

I believe there is a real con job being done on the farmers of Man itoba and what really perplexes me is the attitude of the members opposite, these great wh ite knights from rural Manitoba, the saviours of rural Man itoba, we haven't got a position from them and yet we have this interesting page from the Tyrch niewicz Report. I should just take a look and get this in the record be.cause many Manitobans may not be aware of what Tyrchniewicz had projected could be the impact of.rural Manitoba. Let's look at the consti tuency of the Member for Arthur.

Southwestern Mani toba, I know that area, I spent a good number of years in that area, it's an area of large efficient farmers. Here is the Tyrchniewicz Report and they tell us that under conditions of scenario three there is a potential of a loss of something like $6,000 per farmer. Tha t's a 40 percent decrease in their net income. But we don't hear anything from the Member for Arthur, well, the Member for Swan River, I know there are some very efficient, large farms in that area, let's look at the medium-sized farms.

The Tyrchniewicz Report indicates thatthere is a projected impact of a decrease in net income of around 47. 7 percent. For large farmers it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30 percent decrease, something like $5, 000 per annum year after year after year. Well, let's take a look at central Manitoba, that's the area represented by the Member for Portage la Prairie. We're shown here by the Tyrchniewicz Report that the net income of large farmers is expected to decrease by something like 67 percent, pardon me, I made a miscalculation, around 40 percent, there wou ld be a loss around $5, 000 per farmer.

And yet these members opposite who represent these rural areas, these great wh ite knights of rural Manitoba, these members who wou ld like us to believe they have a patent on wisdom on affairs of rural Manitoba, a copyright on intelligence and comprehension, we hear nothing from them, no position.

Well, it's rather interesting because I know there have been a number of meetings held in the Beause jour area in the last month or two, the Federal Member for Provencher, he's publicly stated, he's on line with the Manitoba position, not only once, about a month ago when there were about 600 persons present he indicated his support to the Manitoba position. Two or three nights ago at Beausejour again several hundred people in attendance, -(I nterjection)- I believe, I don't know, I wasn't there, I'm told several hundred.

Again indicating support for the Manitoba position and furthermore I understand that he has indicated that he has been meeting with his Man itoba counterparts asking them to support the Manitoba resolution. Well, we haven't heard anything either way from the members opposite so it's hard to say what influence he's had. Wha t about Saska tchewan? Well, I guess they have a problem because Barry Wilson in the Western Pro ducer wrote, a Conservative MP, who asked not to be identified, said Saska tchewan MPs are defending the Crow in an attempt to minimize the damage the Sas katchew an Conservative Party.

If we can keep our heads down until the election in Saska tchewan is over things will change and we' ll be able to come out more on it. Well, they're going to come out of their closets in about two weeks time. Great stuff. I think I know wha t's going on, I think I have an idea why our friends opposite haven't taken a position on this. I think they're caught in a trap because with the Gi lson Comm ission meeting with the leaders it's evi dent that the majority of farmers are having very little, if any, say as to what is to happen to the Crow rates.

Now, we have the Opposition who identify so clearly with the leaders of the farm organizations in Man itoba and yet we have the masses of the 30, 000 farmers who are not being given any voice as to wha t will happen over the next number of years with respect to the cost of transportation. It must be a very difficult situation to be in, I will indicate agai n, I will sit back here and listen attentively to hear what our members opposite have to say on this resolution. The no position party.

They're sort of waffling, shuffling, it's the Tory waffle shuffle or shuffle waffle, I don't know what it is but it certainly doesn't tell us what their position is.

I sympathize with the farmers of rural Man itoba, those that members opposite purportedly represent, they're really caught in a squeeze and the Federal Go vernment knows that they're unorganized, they will not speak with one voice, so get them while they're divided. 1502 The one question I must raise, why is it that the Federal Go vernment is so set on squeezing the money for transportation costs out of farmers, after all they spend probably billions of dollars on airports and seaways and heavens knows what, but when it comes to a few hundred million dollars to support the agri cultural industry, well, it's just not there, we've got to make those farmers pay.

Well, I don't think that they'll have an easy time of it, I don't think they'll get away with it that easily. Because I don't think farmers are dumb, they're actually quite clever, they can see wha t's happening. The railways would believe that if

Thursday, 15 April, 19 82 you give them four times the Crow, heaven and earth will be here; there'll be trains moving back and forth and grain will be moving; we'll be making all kinds of sales all around the wor ld; the economy will be boom ing and the farmers will be ever so happy, but you know CPR isn't satisfied with three or four times the Crow. I'd like to quote to you what the President of CPR had to say just a few months ago.

This is from the 19 81 November 12 th issue of the Wester Producer, with an interview with CP Rails President in respect, here's what he had to say: "CP Rail would not consider a compensatory rate based on the Snavely figure" - that thing was discre dited just a few days ago - he "would not consider a compensatory rate on the Snavely figure a large enough settlement to induce the railway to buy its own rolling stock.

The government should be or would be expected to continue buying hopper cars unless grain hauling compensation was set even hig her than the present estimates of four or five times the Crow." So let's gi ve the railways what they want, let's make it 5.7 times the Crow, CPR will still not buy the railway cars, they'll still expect the Canadian Wheat Board to buy them, the provincial gov ernments to lease them and to buy them and who will be the better off? If the Crow is broken the farmer is still going to have prob lems getting freight cars. He will be just paying more for his headaches. Obvious ly, C. P.

Lim ited wants more than a profit from hauling grain when it can make 17 percent return on equity in other areas. The question that one should raise, is that should taxpay ers have to pay CP Limited shareholder equity to this level for hauling grain. You know, I think the big story, the major issue for the request for increased freight rates has to do with this particular gr aph. I know members opposite had the opportunity to see it in a slide about a week ago.

This particular graph indicates what is ex pected to happen for bulk exports through the mountains to the west coast because the monies that the railways wi ll derive for increased transportation rates, they will not be spent to any large extent in Manitoba. Mo st of our grain goes to Thu nder Bay. Ninety-five percent of the monies will be spent in the Western Prairie Provinces, mostly in British Columbia and in Alberta. Well, why would they want to spend all kinds of money there? To haul increased volumes of grain to the west coast? Not quite.

If one spent some time looking at this par ticular graph, one will see that over the next ten years there is probably an increase of a matter of 50 percent, 60 percent in the volume of grain that wi ll be trans ported to the west coast. But, the increase comes in the amount of coal that is going to be carried to the west coast. Well, the question many farmers raise is why don't the railway companies charge the coal companies more? Pretty obvious. Who is one of the largest owners of coal deposits in Canada?

Good old CP through its subsidia ry, For ding Coal, it has proven reserves of coke and coal wor th something like $4.2 billion. Now it would be perfectly stupid of themselves to increase their own freight rates for their own pro duct. So, let's get it off the backs of farmers because they're disorgan ized, they don't have a unified voice and they're easy to get to. Trad itionally they've been 1503 putting up with a lot that they shouldn't have. So, let's get at them. Well, the removal of the Crow rate is a totally unac ceptable solution to the problem that we are facing.

I think that we wou ld welcome the Op position to ag ree with our position. I think at the same time we should be looking at some realistic alternatives because we really haven't been dealing too much with that. - (I nterjection)- Let's hear them? Well, I'm not going to be a radical and ask for nationalization of C.P. Investments. Maybe C.P., but not C.P . Investments, heavens no. What's that? Well, maybe we should go all the way then. But, certainly some thought should be given to the nationalization of the road beds. Perhaps we should consider the transportation system as a public utility.

After all, the two railways do have a monopoly in Canada. Very few people seem to realize that the transportation industry insofar as moving of grain is a monopoly industry. I wo uld think there would be nothing wrong with considering it as a matter that should be governed by some public utilities board. We could guarantee them a rate of return through rate regulation but a guaranteed return might impose unconscionable rates certainly. A lot of thought has to be gi ven as to how they determine what their method of arriving at their costs are.

The main thing at this time is to clearly let Ottawa understand what our position is and let Ottawa fully comprehend what the feeling of Man itoba and western Canadian farmers is. I therefore, ask the Opposition to speak out on this resolution to let us know wha t their position is. Thank you very much. MR. SPEAKER: If there is no other member wishing to speak to the resolution; The Honourable Member for Thomp son. MR. ASHTO N: I move, seconded by the Honourable Member -(I nterjection)- MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

Is there any other member wishing to speak to the resolution standing in the name of the Honour able Member for Roblin-Russell. The Go vernment House Leader. MR. SCHROEDER: I move, seconded by the Min ister of Agricu lture, that Mr . Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the supply to be granted to Her Ma jesty. MOTION presented and carried and the Ho use resolved itself into a Comm ittee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Ma jesty with the Honour able Memb er for River East in the Chair for the Department of Agricultur e and the Honourable.

Member for Radisson in the Chair for the Department of Economic Development and To urism. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, Gi!rard Lecuyer (Radis-

Thursday, 15 April, 1982 son): The meeting will come to order. Item 1. (b )(1) - the Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Mr . Chairman, the Minister yesterday was asked a ques tion about what was the definition of profit, she gave a definition, and I wo uld like to just follow that question ing a little bit in that the Min ister had mentioned that there might be some means of keeping profits in the Province of Manitoba.

Has there any direction been given to the department by the executive of the department to come up with a plan that would find a way to keep profits in the province and, if so, wou ld they be thinking of more corporation taxes on profits or something of that nature? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Mr s. Minister. HON. MURIEL SMITH (Osborne): Mr . Chairperson, the honourable member's question is whether the department has been given any specific instructions to bring about this retention of profits here?

In our development of planning, honourable member, we have only got to the point of identifying that as a long-term goal and we're at the stage of exploring methods and we're not nearly ready to appraise the different options open. It's, should I say, a middle to long-term structural change objective that we have and not likely one that will have an immediate action. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr .

Chairman, the statements that the Minister made regarding the businesses or industries looking at the Province of Manitoba, and I think I heard it correctly, I haven't seen any Ha nsard, but there'd be an effort made to have industries locate wh ere the provinces say they'll locate if there is any assistance from the province at all. Is that going to be a policy of the department? MRS. SMITH:. Mr . Chairman, it would be one of the factors that wo uld enter into negotiation.

There is no intent to be dictatorial, but there is an intent to recog nize that where public money is spent, the public should have some say in terms of achieving the public goals. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr . Chairman, there is in Manitoba legislation that does not allow towns or municipalities to enter into negotiations with companies from the point of view that - or they're not allowed to offer incentives. Tha t legislation was brought in several years ago.

What about the fact that many cities and towns in the Province of Manitoba actively have peo ple wor king for them to develop their particular area and the competition between them gets quite strong at times. If the town or municipality that has done the best job and shown the company that this is the best place to locate, would the province then interfere if they thought that it should be elsewhere because they were putting in money? MRS. SMITH: Mr . Chai rperson, it wou ld be a factor in negotiation.

I think if the case occurred perhaps, as the first part of the honourable member's question, that a company had made a decision in co-o peration with a municipality and no provincial money was asked for then, of course, that wo uld carry on as those two parties worked out. But wh ere public money from the provincial revenues is contributed, we wo uld cer tainly wish to persuade or ensure that, at least, the option of moving where there is unemployment, other things being equal, there wou ldn't be an attempt to negotiate blindly with no recognition of the financial factors that the company had to deal with.

But I think instead of just giving money in competition with other provinces, there would be an attempt to spend public monies only wh ere we could achieve public goals. I think otherwise the strategic spending of public money wo uld be better focused in areas where the public does have some control and the private sector could carry on in its own quite effective way. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, if the government then decides because or persuades, as the Minister puts it, a company to locate as she has mentioned in a specific area and they have decided to be of some assistance, is it the policy of the government then to want equity in the company? MRS. SMITH: Mr .

Chai rperson, it wou ld be a consid eration, as I said yesterday, that whenever public monies are being spent, the full range of options of the relationship would be looked at all the way from no support to some support without any strings, to some kind of support with a condition, to joint ven ture, to the possibility of operating that activity as a Crown corporation. We don't wish to prejudge the form of the relationship and it would be worked out in this specific case.

I'd like to just address the previous issue, the con cept of playing an active role, if you like, in trying to designate where an industry might locate with possi bly more money available if they wou ld choose a preferred area. Tha t is practised already under the RDIA, DREE programs operated by the Federal Go vernment. It's not a foreign concept.

I think feder ally and provincially we recognize that if balanced regional economic development is to occur that there may have to be some intervention in the marketplace forces, because left to themselves, development will tend to concentrate in the large centres or in the more populous provinces. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr . Chairman, the investigations or the research of the company that usually are pres ented to DREE or, as I recall it, was certainly taken into consideration from the point of view that the company may have research to show that it wou ld not be profitable to be in a specific area.

The DREE grants that we are speaking of or any assistance from the Provincial Go vernment really doesn't matter if it's more because they go somewhere else if there isn't a return on investment in that specific place that is recommended by the government. The fact that the Minister - and I think I wr ote it down properly yester day - said, "Public corporations are better for the province than private corporations." Does that mean that it is the intention of the gov ernment to enter into more public corporations as far as at least manufac turing is concerned? MRS. SMITH: Mr .

Chai rperson, I don't think I said 1504

Thursday, 15 April, 19 82 that public were in all cases betterthan private; I think I said we were open to the full range of options in each case. I suspect that in many cases private operations are just as happy to ca rry on and locate where it makes the greatest economic sense to them where they can maxim ize their profits and expect or require no public subsidy and that will carry on as usual. I think the case where negotiations take place is when the private company expects some concession or wants some support from the Provincial Govern ment.

It would be in those instances that we would negotiate from a position of what are our priorities and goals and see if we could work out a best case ag reement recognizing that we wo uldn't want to attract a company that wou ld immediately not make any profit. We wouldn't want to attract a lame duck. So the agreement would have to come somewhere between the maximum profit point that the company was interested in and the desirable goals of the government. Negotiation is just that; you start from your pr eferred positions and work to some kind of mutual ag reement. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, that answers the question on the policy of the government regarding negotiations with companies as to where they may be or may locate, etc., but the question that public corpo rations are better for the province, and the Minister has explained her statement and we don't have Hans ard at the present time. I was asking if that is a policy of the government. Does that mean that the govern ment is looking towards having more publicly-ow ned corpor ations in the manufacturing business in Man itoba? MRS. SMITH: Mr .

Chai rperson, in the first instance, public may be better if more of the profit can be retained and recycled through the province and if some control can reside with the public so that we have some greater ability to maintain as strong and structurally a mature economy in Manitoba. That doesn't mean that we envision a heavy public invol vement right across the whole spectrum. In the short run our priorities are as stated in the election program to focus on the energy and natural resource field. I don't think there will be a heavy move into the manu facturing sector.

While we are using admittedly scarce resources to develop in the energy and primary resource area, we wi ll be putting in place an improved planning capacity in order to have good analytical information available to work out the cost benefit of putting public monies into manufacturing vis-a-v is primary industry. So, I think I can say straig htfor- . ward ly that we don't see a great increase in public presence in the manufacturing sector in the short run and the mid-te rm, long-term will depend on the results of a tighter analysis. MR.

JOHNSTON: Well, if there is research being done right now to come up with recommendations regarding a policy for retention of profits, and if it is the policy of the gov ernment to look at public corpo rations so that there can be a profit put back in for the benefit of the people of Manitoba, doesn't that really mean that the government is going to be inhibiting people from coming into the Province of Manitoba or investing in the Province of Manitoba for two reasons: that they could be in competition with the govern ment, and if they are in competition with the govern ment and they were making a profit, that profit wou ld have some qualifications to have it remain in the province.

The corporations that are interested in investing today anywhere are not really interested in having a situation where they have competition from go vern ment and certainly not having their profits retained in the province to assist the gov ernment to put it in to public investment, which would be wor king agai nst them.

There is no boundaries on money if a company comes into the province and pays their taxes, becomes a go od corporate citizen, pays their employees good wages and are good corporate citizens in the munici pality that they are in and they make a profit, I think that if there's any attempts to retain those profits in the Province of Manitoba or to tell them or by higher taxes or in any other form that the Minister may have recommended to her, it wi ll be a disincentive for com panies to come to this province The Minister keeps referring to the policy not being presently in place, but I ask the question again or I make the statement ag ain, because of what the Minister has said, that this type of policy is being looked at in the department to try and come up with some sort of system to retain company profits in the province.

Am I correct in that analysis? MRS. SMITH: Mr . Chairperson, I think the honour able member is making the mistake of thinking that because a little of something might be done that we will automatically move and do everything. When we say we want to look at more profits being maintained in the province, it doesn't mean that we are going to be trying to keep all profits here. I think the top priority field for our concern is the profits from primary resource development. The manufacturing sector has some other problems and opportunities.

It's our belief that private sector investment is more sophisticated than it used to be. It used to see itself as in opposition to the government and to public investment. It's our

interpretation of the difficulties of the last few years that have been more agg ravated in Manitoba than elsewhere, that the pol icy of cutting back or holding the line on public investment and being willing to coax, try to do wha t ever you can to coax private investment in, is an inadequate strategy.

We wo uld like to have a mixed and balanced strategy whereby we develop a healthy public sector field primarily, as I' ve said, in the fields of energy and natural resource and that we examine the full range of opportunities in the manufacturing sector, realizing that there's a lot of opportunity for both groups to function.

In terms of whether we will discourage investment from coming in, I think you'll find that just about every province in Canada is starting to look at, not only are the companies which come in starting to look at whether they're getting a share of the public's busi ness, in terms of what they produce and wh at go v ernment procures, but they are expecting provincial governments to require that they in their turn to be good corporate citizens must show a willingness to expand and invest in the local area. 1505

Thursday, 15 April, 1982 So, I haven't found in my dealings with the private sector a naivete in that regard. I find that they're inter ested in stability, predictability and a good climate. I think if there is a high level of economic activity in the province, people have money in their pockets and money is circulating and that we develop an eco nomic structure where there is development in the areas where we have some advantage, where we set priority sectors and develop forward and backward linkages. There's plenty to do from both the public and the private side and together they're stronger.

I just don't accept that the one-sided reliance on pri vate sector investment and doing anything to coax them in or, well it's perhaps too strong to say curry favour, but in a sense never step on their toes is wise. I think we want to work a mutually advantageous posi tion and I find the private sector very understanding and respecting of that position. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for Tuxedo. MR. FILMON: Thank you, Mr .

Chairman, I was inter ested in pursuing some comments and remarks that were raised yesterday just at the time of committee rising, whereby the Minister indicated that she was interested in pursuing businesses and allowing them to achieve a fair profit in Man itoba. I believe that the Member for St.

No rbert asked her to define what fair profits were and I'm not sure exactly if I can paraph rase her answer, but she said fair profits differed depending on the type of industry and the manner in which they contribute towards the provincial econ omy and she spoke of differing levels depending on whether or not they were in primary resource devel opment or manufacturing and whether or not they were a Manitoba based company or a Canadian based company or foreign company and so on and so forth.

I wonder if the Mi nster could be a little more definitive about her response to that as to what she considers to be fair profits to businesses or industries who are investing in Manitoba. MRS. SMITH: Mr . Chai rperson, yes, Honourable Member for Tuxedo, the fact is that one needs to look at the amount of investment required by a company if it's a capital intensive operation as most manufactur ing activities are, there's a heavy investment and usu ally a fair risk being taken. The marketing field for manufacturers is competitive and is difficult.

It is not confined to this area so that they're much more sensi tive to the differing circumstances in other provinces, indeed, in other countries. Consequently, one would need to say a fair return for them was somewhat higher than one might expect from say a retail opera tion where the capital investment might be more limited, where the competitors were mainly in the same geogr aphical area and where any change in government policy here would affect them all equally. It's those types of factors that, I think, wo uld need to be looked at.

I think we've passed the time when we can say that somehow business can function independently of public purposes and public responsibility. I know the belief has been that if they pay their taxes and employ people and pay fair wages that business is being a good corpor ate citizen.

I would say that those are necessary factors but not quite sufficient in today's situation and that if Manitoba continues to rely for its future economic development solely on that type of corporate good citizenship we may, in fact, find our selves possessing only the footloose type of corpo rate development which can not only - you menti oned the capital could flow out easily, it can flow in and flow out easily. So it can be deceptive to coax those kind of developments here and think then that one has achieved something lasting.

They can just as easily - not as easily- and it's not a simple matter to move but in the fast-moving world of today's competi tive scene in the manufacturing area, they can leave Man itoba quite quickly too. I guess our strategy is to increase the number of activities over which the peo ple, not the gov ernment as a domineering, control ling,, arrogant body, but the people of Manitoba as the one million citizens who want jobs, who want some kind of security for the future have some greater degree of control over, is a good strategy. MR. FILM ON: Mr .

Chairman, so the Minister is saying that her department, therefore, under her new philo sophy is not necessarily just interested in attracting businesses that create jobs, long-t erm, firm jobs in Man itoba, but they have to satisfy some other social purpose in being here? Is that what she's saying? MRS. SMITH: Mr . Chairperson, yes, I think we stated in the opening address that we' re looking at a closer link between social and economie.ebj ectives. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Could ,I ask the Member for Tuxedo to speak closer to the mike, please? 1506 MR. FILMON: Could the Min ister indicate, Mr .

Chairman, - she wasn't very specific on fair profits. If we were in a manufacturing business, would she con sider 20 percent profits fair profits? MRS. SMITH: Mr . Chairperson, I think we wou ld have to look at the type of manufacturing, the amount of Capital required, the amount of machinery, high technology, the competitive situation in the market ing field. I don't think a benchmark pulled out of the air like that is adequate. The major energy project developers today are looking at 25 to 30 percent return on their investment.

This is very high and it's more than the province wou ld require, if it were look ing at the viability of investment in energy. Rapid growth or expansion isn't always the best kind. It may be that we pay too high a price to get development on that side at the expense of other people whose social needs are being left out. We don'ttrust thatthe trickle d own benefits from strictly business or economic development will reach the full range of the popula tion without some alternative tools and programs. MR. FILMON: Mr .

Chairman, given the fact that Can ada Sa vings Bonds paid a return on investment of 19 -'h percent this year and given the fact that with interest rates in the area that they are, many people can put their money in investments that pay a very substantial rate of return, close to the 20 percent range without creating any jobs, without taking any risks whatsoever or very minimal risks, how would the

Thursday, 15 April, 19 82 Minister expect that her department or in fact the Manitoba economy is going to attract investment in risk situations to create job s for Manitobans, if there isn't a possibility of getting some return that is in that particular range? Why wou ld anybody risk anything at all if they can just put their money in interest bearing investments that don't create jobs, that don't assist the growth and development of the Manitoba economy? MRS. SMITH: Mr . Chai rperson, I don't believe that all the people who operate in the economy look only at the rate of return.

There are industries, people that like to live in Manitoba; they like some of the quality of life factors that are here. They would be content to put their money to work at a secure longer-term return. We don't think people areall 10 0 percent motivated by maximi zing profit. It may be difficult to attract outside money in unless one acknowledges those factors and I think that's why I emphasized at the beginning a flexib le approach; that we wo uldn't take 1 percent and lay it on everything. We wou ld look at the specific circumstances of the industry, of the location and of the project.

There are nonprofit ways of org anizing industry. There are co-operative and profit-s haring methods of organization. The maximizing profit - and a sort of one-model view of economic develop ment is, I submit, an inadequate approach. MR. FILMON: Yes, Mr . Chairman, I'm not sugge sting a particular return on investment that is acceptable.

I'm sug gesting that's up to the individual who's mak ing that investment, but I'm saying that surely it makes sense that, even if we're not talking about attracting money from outside of the province into the province on an investment basis - and it seems to me that we're going to have to think in those terms - but if the Minister says that she's content to deal with situations of Manitoba investors looking at the potential for investment in Manitoba, I'll speak as a past and pres ent and potential investor in Manitoba and say, why would I be tempted to take any risk whatsoever to create any enterprise that employs Manitobans, that contributes through taxes, through other economic stimuli to the province's goals and needs; why wou ld I take any risk whatsoever if I could take that same money and invest it in interest-bearing certificates and low or nil risk investments, why wou ldn't I just keep my money in those things and not do anything whatsoever towards economic development in this province if the Minister's attitude is that I shouldn't be allowed to perhaps get profits that are only in line with what I could get without risk in interest?

MRS. SMITH: Mr. Chairperson, one of the concepts that has arisen around the idea of keeping profits in Manitoba is not that the profit of a company wo uld be limited, but that it wou ld be expected to reinvest some of that in Manitoba.

Another point is that one of the problems of the market system in terms of profit and investment is that there comes a time when the big investors find it more profitable to buy up one another than to invest in actually so- called productive activity and that's when you get a great period of concentration of ownership, not a process that we're very pleased to see. 1507 Another interesting development about which I feel more positively with the sort of economic climate that we currently live in, is that I understand private utili ties in the States, which used to be putting a great deal of investment in nuclear generating capacity and expansion of their generating capacity, now find that they can make more profit by making loans to consu mers to retrofit their houses and, in fact, conserve energy.

It's sort of an interesting turnaround where the investment motivations can flip from achieving one goal to achieving another.

The other point I'd like to make is that my under standing of personal investment philosophies - it makes sense to have a mixed portfolio - some high risk investments, some middle risk and some low risk, and my reading of many of the people of Man itoba, admittedly they may be the smaller investors, but there may be more of them, could be attracted to a lower risk, lower return type of investment, that not everyone goes for the high return because it usually is accompanied by a fair bit of risk.

Balancing out the risks can make sense for a personal investment stra tegy and I would think it wou ld make good sense for a public investment approach. In terms of the individual investor, I think the investor that wants to make a very rapid profit, a very high profit very qu ickly, we could question whether they're the best corporate citizens in the province. MR. FIL MON: Mr. Chairman, the Minis ter has bounced all over the field and I'll address her com ments one at a time.

When she talks in terms of the adverse effects of big investors buying up each other as opposed to invest ing in new enterprises I wasn't addressing large inves tors, I was addressing the effect of the kinds of state ments she's making; the negative effect on attracting small investors to invest money in this province. I'm acknowledging with that that 80 percent of the com panies operating in Manitoba fall under the federal definition of small business and 75 percent of the job s in this province are within that group of compaoies.

But, why would anybody take their money out of any secure interest-bearing investment to go into the risk of setting up, creating an enterprise in Man itoba if the Minister is saying that she's not all that concerned about attracting investment in Man itoba and that she's more concerned with restricting their profits. She's more concerned with all of those kinds of things; the contribution to the social goals of this province, why wo uld anybody do that? That's my point.

The second thing is that she said that these energy companies in the United States have changed their goals from producing and supplying energy to con sumers to selling them equipment and retrofitting their operations to conserve energy; that they've changed their goals. The fact of the matter is the goal in both case was for them to get a return on their investment and a profit on the operation of their enterprise.

They found a different way to get a profit by still being in the energy field but by doing some thing perhaps entirely different than what they had been doing in the past, but their goal still was to get a return on investment to justify their being in business.

Thursday, 15 April, 19 82 MRS. SMITH: Mr . Chairperson, I admit that little story did seem to show the remarkable adaptability of the market system and to a certain extent I told it a bit agai nst myself because I realize that

interpretation could be put on it. But, it could have gone so easily the other way where the motive to conserve wo uld not be there and we would be carried down the other road. However, that aside, I don't think that's the dominant pattern that we see developing. I think that doing anything and everything you can to attract investment is not the best strategy either. I think what you want is a balanced approach where you say there are public goals and there are private-profit goals and for the most part these can co-ex ist and be qu ite comforta ble.

There can be mutually satisfactory arrangements because there are a lot of opportunities for people with initiative and the entrepreneurial spirit. But, every once in awh ile there are conflicts, and I don't apolog ize for the fact that our government feels very strongly that wh ere there's a conflict between attracting in an outside investment and meeting the legitimate human needs of the people in Man itoba that we will put the people ahead of that kind of eco nomic gai n. But, at the same time we don't rely solely on attracting private investment.

We also are willing to look at ways of generating public investment. Tha t's why we would like to see more of the rent of our primary resources retained here in Manitoba. If and when we develop our hydro-electricity and we're going to sell it, we want to ensure that it's at a rate wh ere there's some advantage to the people of Manitoba. So, with that many-tract approach, we feel that we have a more balanced and flexi ble system.

We found, as I said before that because the big companies par ticulary are dealing with a range of political groupings across the world that go far beyond the spectrum at both the - if we are goi ng to talk left and right - much more to the left and much more to the right of what you're going to find in Man itoba. These compan ies are used to developing a sensitivity to the social values and priorities that exist in the recipient country area. If we have resources here and we do have resources, they're not glamorous resources butt hey' re solid; they're diversified. We have those resources.

There are opportunities. We're confident that we can get a good integrated and well-d iversified economic development here in the province. MR. FILMON: Among those socially important goals which this government holds high is the opportunity for gainful employment and the opportunity to achieve one's personal satisfaction through the pursuit of a good career. Is that one of them? MRS. SMITH: Mr . Chairperson, yes. MR. FILMON: Good. Well, I'm pleased to hear at least that.

May I ask the Minister then in looking at companies that may wish to locate in Man itoba, that may wish to create enterprises that wou ld see the creation of sig nificant numbers of jobs, if it did not involve signifi cant public expenditure in bringing that company here - and I'm talking in terms of giving that com pany grants or low-interest loans or anything like that - if none that were part of the factor, that a company just saw a business opportunity here and that busi ness opportunity happened to create job s and stimu late the economy and create the flow-th rough of a great deal of money in the Manitoba economy, wha t other reasons would the Minister have for getting involved in that whole matrix and perhaps in some way influencing that company?

MRS. SMITH: Mr . Chairperson, are you thinking in terms of using taxation or other means because I think I addressed the question before you arrived today, that we see companies which choose to come and locate here and don't require anything special from the public; quite free to carry on in that way, that we saw the right of the public to have some say on location and other factors when they required direct public monies.

However, when we get around to the question of taxation and looking at what is the right and responsibility of a corporate citizen in Man itoba, what we would like to do is look at the whole spec trum, that is the environmental costs; the training costs; the infrastructure costs. A company doesn't come and exist in a community or province in some sort of balloon unconnected to what's going on. There's a whole, usually invisible and not overtly costed support system that has been built in.

All the transportation, communication systems, the health system, the education system, the roads and so on that are put in by public expense. So often in the past we've looked at the company's economic role in a province or in an area not really examining those things. Taxes were always thought of as an imposition. As a matter of fact, there's been a lot of wha t we call tax expenditures, exemptions from paying taxes in the federal tax system which really are direct subsidies to those companies.

There hasn't been a systematic approach to what in fact is the support system paid for by the public that does in fact make it possible for that company to function. Even if all that were taken into account, there still could be an argument made that companies do not exist in isola tion from the people in the area in which they locate.

An argu ment could still be made that the economy of a country exists to meet the needs of the people and our belief in the role of government is that it's those very issues that it's our responsibility to look at, to measure, and to work out an appropriate relationship with economic enterprises. 15 08 But we have an interest in healthy development. I can't see us running around and trying to throw mon key wr enches into potentially viable operations when there is no need.

I think we've already demonstrated that kind of prudent, careful approach, not jumping in to bail out Sekine, not moving right in and taking over all the profitable enterprises in Manitoba. We have no intention of doing that, but we do believe that we have gradually to shift the mix of public and private some wha t and our top priority is going to be to look very closely, as I said earlier, at the resource and energy field and in our existing Crown corporate field.

Other opportunities we wil l weigh very, very care fully and move very cautiously, but we are not opposed to the idea of moving into new Crown corpo rate or joint venture relationships.

Thursday, 15 April, 19 82 MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hour being 4:30 I am interrupting the proceedings for Private Members' Hour. The Comm ittee will reconvene at 8:00 o'clock tonight. Committee rise SUPPLY - AGRICULTURE MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, Phil Eyler (River East): The Com mittee will come to order. We are discussing Item 7.( d)(

I) in the Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Land and Water Development Division, Agricultural Crown Lands: Salaries. The Member for Arthur. MR. DOWNEY: Mr .

Chairman, the conclusion of the Com mittee two evenings ago and the subsequent question periods have given me a considerable amount of reason for a considerable amount of concern with the intentions and the directions that this Minister of Agriculture plans to take the ag riculture community, supported by the reversal of the policy which was allowing the Crown lands to be sold, the long-term lease properties to be sold to the farm community, the cancellation of the farm loan programs, the state ments that the Minister puts on the record that he does not believe that private ownership has anything to do with food production and that we are moving towards a system in the So viet Union has, I think, reason for the Minister of Agr iculture to do quite a bit of soul searching and probably would be a worthwhile exercise for him to take to his caucus and to his Cab inet the very positions that he has put forward.

Because they are of a very serious nature, something that is directly opposed to by, I would say, 99 if not 10 0 percent of the farmers in this province; to have a Min ister of Agriculture that is not in tune with the feelings, the aspirations and the desires of the farm community, then I really can't see how, Mr. Chairman, he can work effectively and in a co-or dinated way with the farm community. Mr . Chairman, it is a serious situation when we have those kinds of things or the policies that are, as I say, directly in opposition to the development of the future of agriculture.

One of the reasons given for the can cellation of the sales policy for Crown lands has some relationship as far as the Minister of Agriculture is concerned to the numbers of quarters of lands that were sold or acquired by a farmer.

You know, that even gi ves me more reason to think that there are some ideas or some thoughts behind the Minister of Agriculture, or in his mind, and maybe we will have a little more clarification of those thoughts when we discuss the Manitoba Agricultural Lands Protection Boar d, what his policies and directions are for who should be involved in agriculture, who shouldn't be, the rights of Canadian citizens and the ownership question.

Ma ybe it will be further disclosed there so that the people of Manitoba can make a judgm ent or pass judg ment on precisely wha t we do have leading the helm of the ag ricultural community. Because when we introduced the sales policy for Crown lands, Mr . Chairman, I think the Minister should take this pretty closely into consideration when they make comments that some particular indi vidual got a chance to buy 21 quarters. Let's, first of all, lay a little bit of groundwork and put it into pers pective. Twenty one quarters in some of the areas which he represents, Mr .

Chairman, could be - (I nterjection)- well, the Member for Da uphin says 33. It could just be a viable livestock operation, some of the Crown lands that would only carry 5 to 20 head per quarter section. He again scowls at that. - (I nterjection)- Mr. Chairman, that's the kind of thing, that's in its current position. The Minister said: "Why wou ld we sell it?" Well, Mr. Chairman, we all know that a lot of the land, there is money being spent, we voted money. We voted money, Mr. Chairman, to improve the land through the research and the development of ag riculture. Tha t's what it's all about, Mr . Chairman. Mr.

Chairman, the land didn't immediately become a top production from Day One. Mr . Chairman, a lot of the land that the livestock are produced on has been considered margi nal land that improvements can be made on through brushing, scrub clearing. He's got money voted in his Estimates for that very fact, for that very exercise, so don't let him try and direct the debate away from the point that there should be or shouldn't be 21 or 33 quarters. Because if you care fully pursue and look at the policy that was intro duced, it was on lands that had been leased prior to 19 77, Mr . Chairman, prior to 19 77.

It could have been the government of Ed Sch reyer that leased those lands, those 21 quarters; it could have been the government of Ed Sch reyer that leased those 33 quarters of land. It was n't the Conservative government, Mr . Chairman, under our administration that gave people those sizes of parcels, so who are they trying to kid? Who are they trying to kid, Mr. Chairman? Let's look at the policy, let's just not bring a bunch of fluff and try and fool the people. It could have been prior to the Sch reyer years, under the Wal ter Weir years or the Duff Roblin years, Mr .

Chairman, it could have been leased under those times. Let's not try and say that it was our administration that allo cated 21 quarters or 33 quarters which was now sold. It had nothing to do with our go vernment or our allo cation. That was done prior to June of 19 77 so we didn't allocate that parcel. 15 09 Si nce that time there could have been leases of that nature and larger or the same size. I don't have a hang-up about it, Mr.

Chairman, and that leads me to a part of the area that I want to ask the Minister, and that is, if he's maintaining the point system of alloca tion of the Crown land leases, or the appealing of Crown land leases, if there's a feeling of a judg ment matter as far as the department is concerned and there is unhappiness within the farm community. ls he carrying on with that point system? Tha t's No. 1, and No. 2, Mr. Chairman, does off-farm income continue to play a role in whether a farmer is able to lease a parcel of Crown land or whether he or she is not able to?

Because I think in times of developing a farm, or the beginning farmer, Mr . Chairman, I certainly think that there should be an opportunity if the farmer, he or she, the husband or wife, have an opportunity to make some off-farm income, that shouldn't penalize them. They shouldn't be penalized, Mr . Cha irman, when it comes to leasing of Crown land. Tha t, to me, is a reasonable way to feed your family or to make a living and I think that has to be taken into consideration, that off-farm income should not eliminate you from

Thursday, 15 April, 19 82 leasing Crown land. That's certainly a point that has to be made. At the same time, and I' ve had concerns and prob lems with it under the Man itoba Agricultural Credit Corpor ation and it may need a change in the Act where, in fact, they may be able to get away either by

interpretation or regulation where off-farm income as well could be earned by people who were applying for a Credit Corpor ation loan. Because a lot of young farmers, a lot of people in rural Man itoba, as the Minis ter knows, do have some off-farm income to support the beginning years, in fact, the continuing years. It's their choice if they want to have additional income and that's wha t it's all about is to sustain a viable farm community and if they have other options I think they should be allowed to proceed to use them. Now, Mr .

Chairman, I' ve asked two specific ques tions in my comments, and maybe the Minister could proceed to answer them. As wel l, Mr. Chairman, I wou ld ask the Minister how long he expects the review to take place of the Crown land sales policy. Does he expect it to take one, two, three, four, five months or does he expect it to be possibly cleared up by ·1ate spring so that the farm people who are still interested in purchasing some of their long-term leases, that they may be able to make their plans this coming summer and this coining year and proceed to buy it? Or is he just, Mr .

Chairman, trying to buy a bit of time to get through the Estimates in the committee and say, well, we'r e just reviewing it, it's because it's a convenience for me as the Min ister? Let's really tell the farm community what kind of a Minister of Agri culture we have.

Is he a Min ister of Agriculture who has demonstrated so far to this Ho use and to me that he is all lip service as far as helping thefarm commun ity, he's all lip service as far as meeting with the Farm Bureau, meeting with the Cattle Producers Associa tion, saying I had full consultation before develop ment of programs and I' ve had all these things. Mr. Chairman, he is still persisting that's taken place but if you read what's coming from the other side of the picture, the farm community, the Farm Bureau it's not the truth that the Minister of Ag ricul ture is telling us.

He may have met with them but, Mr . Chairman, he's not coming clean and I have reason to believe the people who are in those positions, Mr . Chairman. I have some real

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-34a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 34a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	98c8b343a560f848ae6c5dfceb29b18dd45d44c1

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